CECE CECO Environmental Corporation

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(unaudited)

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of CECO Environmental Corp. and its subsidiaries (the “Company”, “we”, “us”, or “our”) have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in annual financial statements have been condensed or omitted pursuant to those rules and regulations. In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company contain all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring adjustments) necessary to present fairly the financial position as of September 30, 2016 and the results of operations and cash flows for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015. The results of operations for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year. The balance sheet as of December 31, 2015 has been derived from the audited consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the SEC.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

These financial statements and accompanying notes should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements and the notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 filed with the SEC.

Unless otherwise indicated, all balances within tables are in thousands, except per share amounts.

On September 3, 2015, the Company completed the acquisition of PMFG, Inc. (“PMFG”). The results of its operations have been consolidated with our results following the acquisition date. For a more complete discussion of the transaction, refer to Note 17.

The Company’s consolidated financial statements include the accounts of all wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries for all periods presented. All significant inter-company accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.  On July 12, 2016, the Company entered into an agreement with the noncontrolling owner of Peerless Propulsys China Holdings LLC (“Peerless Propulsys”) to acquire 100% ownership in the equity and earnings of Peerless Propulsys of their interest (40%).  For a more complete discussion of the transaction, refer to Note 17. 

In August 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2016-15, “Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments”.  ASU 2016-15 provides guidance on how certain cash receipts and cash payments are presented and classified in the statement of cash flows.  ASU 2016-15 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years.  ASU 2016-15 will require adoption on a retrospective basis, unless it is impracticable to apply, in which case we would be required to apply the amendments prospectively as of the earliest date practicable.  Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period.  The Company is currently in the process of evaluating the impact of ASU 2016-15 on its consolidated financial statements.

In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-12, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers, Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients”, clarifying the implementation guidance on narrow scope improvements and practical expedients related to FASB ASU 2014-09,  “ Revenue from Contracts with Customers”. The improvements address completed contracts and contract modifications at transition, non-cash consideration, the presentation of sales taxes and other taxes collected from customers, and assessment of collectability when determining whether a transaction represents a valid contract.  In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-10,  “ Revenue from Contracts with Customers, Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing”   clarifying the implementation guidance on identifying performance obligations and licensing related to FASB ASU 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers”. The amendments reduce the cost and complexity of identifying promised goods or services and improve the guidance for determining whether promises are separately identifiable.   These pronouncements have the same effective date as the new revenue standard, which is effective for fiscal years, and interim

6

periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2017.  The Company is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of these standards on the Company’s consolidated financial statements and has not yet determined the method of adoption.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, “Compensation—Stock Compensation: Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting .” ASU 2016-09 introduces targeted amendments intended to simplify the accounting for stock compensation. Specifically, the ASU requires all excess tax benefits and tax deficiencies (including tax benefits of dividends on share-based payment awards) to be recognized as income tax expense or benefit in the income statement. The tax effects of exercised or vested awards should be treated as discrete items in the reporting period in which they occur. An entity also should recognize excess tax benefits, and assess the need for a valuation allowance, regardless of whether the benefit reduces taxes payable in the current period. That is, off-balance sheet accounting for net operating losses stemming from excess tax benefits would no longer be required and instead such net operating losses would be recognized when they arise. Existing net operating losses that are currently tracked off balance sheet would be recognized, net of a valuation allowance if required, through an adjustment to opening retained earnings in the period of adoption. Entities will no longer need to maintain and track an “APIC pool.” The ASU also requires excess tax benefits to be classified along with other income tax cash flows as an operating activity in the statement of cash flows.  In addition, ASU 2016-09 elevates the statutory tax withholding threshold to qualify for equity classification up to the maximum statutory tax rates in the applicable jurisdiction(s). The ASU also clarifies that cash paid by an employer when directly withholding shares for tax withholding purposes should be classified as a financing activity.   ASU 2016-09 provides an optional accounting policy election (with limited exceptions), to be applied on an entity-wide basis, to either estimate the number of awards that are expected to vest (consistent with existing U.S. GAAP) or account for forfeitures when they occur. ASU 2016-09 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those annual periods. The Company is currently evaluating the potential impact of the adoption of this standard on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-05, “Derivatives and Hedging: Effect of Derivative Contract Novations on Existing Hedge Accounting Relationships.” ASU 2016-05 amends Topic 815 to clarify that novation of a derivative (replacing one of the parties to a derivative instrument with a new party) designated as the hedging instrument would not, in and of itself, be considered a termination of the derivative instrument or a change in critical terms requiring discontinuation of the designated hedging relationship. ASU 2016-09 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those annual periods. The Company is currently evaluating the potential impact of the adoption of this standard on the Company’s consolidated financial statements .

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, “Leases.” ASU 2016-02 establishes a right-of-use (“ROU”) model that requires a lessee to record a ROU asset and a lease liability on the balance sheet for all leases with terms longer than 12 months. Leases will be classified as either finance or operating, with classification affecting the pattern of expense recognition in the income statement. ASU 2016-02 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. A modified retrospective transition approach is required for lessees for capital and operating leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements, with certain practical expedients available. The Company is currently evaluating the potential impact of the adoption of ASU 2016-02 on the Company’s consolidated financial statements .

In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-11, “Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory.” ASU 2015-11 requires inventory within the scope of the ASU (e.g., first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) or average cost) to be measured using the lower of cost and net realizable value. Inventory excluded from the scope of the ASU (i.e., last-in, first-out (“LIFO”) or the retail inventory method) will continue to be measured at the lower of cost or market. The ASU also amends some of the other guidance in Topic 330, “Inventory,” to more clearly articulate the requirements for the measurement and disclosure of inventory. However, those amendments are not intended to result in any changes to current practice. ASU 2015-11 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those annual periods. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements .

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, “Revenue From Contracts With Customers.” ASU 2014-09 supersedes nearly all existing revenue recognition principles under GAAP. The core principle of ASU 2014-09 is to recognize revenues when promised goods or services are transferred to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration an entity expects to be entitled to for those goods or services using a defined five step process. More judgment and estimates may be required to achieve this principle than under existing GAAP. ASU 2014-09 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods therein, using either of the following transition methods: (i) a full retrospective approach reflecting the application of the standard in each prior reporting period with the option to elect certain practical expedients or (ii) a retrospective approach with the cumulative effect upon initial adoption recognized at the date of adoption, which includes additional footnote disclosures. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of ASU 2014-09 on the

7

Company’s consolidated financial statements and has not yet determined the method of adoption . The Company’s cur rent revenue recognition policies are generally consistent with the new revenue recognition standards set forth in ASU 2014-09.  Potential adjustments to input measures are not expected to be pervasive to the majority of the Company’s contracts.  While no significant impact is expected upon adoption of the new guidance, the Company will not be able to make that determination until the time of adoption based upon outstanding contracts at that time.

Balances billed but not paid by customers under retainage provisions in contracts amounted to approximately $2.0 million and $2.3 million at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Retainage receivables on contracts in progress are generally collected within a year after contract completion.

The provision for doubtful accounts was $30,000 and $0.4 million for the three-month periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and $0.3 million and $0.5 million for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively.  

Revenues from contracts are primarily recognized on the percentage of completion method, measured by the percentage of contract costs incurred to date compared with estimated total contract costs for each contract. This method is used because management considers contract costs to be the best available measure of progress on these contracts. For contracts where the duration is short, total contract revenue is insignificant, or reasonably dependable estimates cannot be made, revenues are recognized on a completed contract basis, when risk and title passes to the customer, which is generally upon shipment of product.  During the second quarter, the Company’s Zhongli division within the Energy segment has recognized revenue on a percentage of completion method compared to the completed contracts method that was utilized in previous quarters.  This change was made after determining that the Company had designed and implemented appropriate controls to track project costs and estimates to complete.  During the three months and nine months periods ended September 30, 2016, this division recognized $5.2 million and $13.4 million, respectively, in percentage of completion revenue related to open projects as of September 30, 2016.

Our contracts have various lengths to completion ranging from a few days to several months. We anticipate that a majority of our current contracts will be completed within the next twelve months.

8

Provisions for estimated losses on uncompleted contracts are made in the period in which such losses are determined. Changes to job performance, job conditions, and estimated profitability may result in revisions to contract revenue and costs and are recog nized in the period in which the revisions are made.  A provision of $0.2 million for estimated losses on uncompleted contracts was recognized at September 30, 2016.  No provision for estimated losses on uncompleted contracts was required at December 31, 2 015.  

Amounts credited to the allowance for obsolete inventory and charged to cost of sales amounted to $0.1 million and $0.2 million for the three-month periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and $1.0 million and $0.5 million for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively.          

Activity for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015 is as follows:

Amortization expense of finite life intangible assets was $3.5 million and $3.3 million for the three-month periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and $11.1 million and $8.5 million for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively.  

9

The Company completes an annual (or more often if circumstances require) impairment assessment of its goodwill and indefinite life intangible assets as of October 1. For 2015, the first step of the two-step goodwill impairment test as described in FASB ASC 350-20-35 was performed for all reporting units, except for the recently acquired PMFG reporting unit, as there were no events or changes in operations since the acquis ition date that would indicate possible impairment .

Under the first step, the Company bases its measurement of the fair value of a reporting unit using a weighting of the income method and the market method on a 50/50 basis.  In prior years, the Company used the income method. The income method is based on a discounted future cash flow approach that uses the significant assumptions of projected revenue, projected operational profit, terminal growth rates, and the cost of capital. Projected revenue, projected operational profit and terminal growth rates were determined to be significant assumptions because they are three primary drivers of the projected cash flows in the discounted future cash flow approach. Cost of capital was also determined to be a significant assumption as it is the discount rate used to calculate the current fair value of those projected cash flows.   The market method is based on financial multiples of comparable companies and applies a control premium.  Significant estimates in the market approach include identifying similar companies with comparable business factors such as size, growth, profitability, risk and return on investment and assessing comparable revenue and operating income multiples in estimating the fair value of a reporting unit. Based on the step 1 analysis, the resultant estimated fair value of the reporting units exceeded their carrying value as of October 1, 2015 and no goodwill impairment charges were recorded.

For one of the reporting units tested under the step 1 analysis in 2015, which carried goodwill of $77.9 million, the excess of fair value over their carrying value was only 8%. This reporting unit was acquired in the second half of fiscal 2013, and therefore the Company did not expect the fair value to be significantly in excess of the carrying value. Furthermore, there were no fundamental changes in the business or market that would indicate a significant decline in the fair value since the acquisition date. Management’s projections used to estimate the undiscounted cash flows included increasing sales volumes and operational improvements designed to reduce costs. Changes in any of the significant assumptions used, including if the Company does not successfully achieve its 2016 operating plan, can materially affect the expected cash flows, and such impacts can result in the requirement to proceed to a step 2 test and potentially a material non-cash impairment charge could result. Therefore, the key assumptions most susceptible to change are projected revenue and projected operational profit. We determined that with other assumptions held constant under our weighted income and market method for measuring fair value, a decrease in projected revenue growth rates of approximately 110 basis points or a decrease in projected EBITDA rates of approximately 390 basis points would result in fair value of the reporting unit being equal to its carrying value, which would require us to perform a step 2 test for this reporting unit.

During 2015, the Company also performed a step 1 analysis for all reporting units with indefinite life intangible assets. The Company based its measurement of the fair value of the indefinite life intangible assets utilizing the relief from royalty method. The significant assumptions used under the relief from royalty method are projected revenue, royalty rates, terminal growth rates, and the cost of capital. Projected revenue, royalty rates and terminal growth rates were determined to be significant assumptions because they are three primary drivers of the projected royalty cash flows in the relief from royalty method. Cost of capital was also determined to be a significant assumption as it is the discount rate used to calculate the current fair value of those projected royalty cash flows. Changes in any of the significant assumptions used, including if the Company does not successfully achieve its 2016 operating plan, can materially affect the expected cash flows, and such impacts can result in material non-cash impairment charges.  Under this approach, the resultant estimated fair value of the indefinite life intangible assets exceeded their carrying value for all but three reporting units as of October 1, 2015.  For three of the reporting units, which carried combined indefinite life intangible assets of $10.0 million, our fair value measurement resulted in the aggregate fair value being 33.4% lower than the aggregate carrying value.  Accordingly, we recorded an impairment charge of $3.3 million during the three-month period ended December 31, 2015.   These three reporting units were acquired in the second half of fiscal 2013. Management’s projections used to estimate the fair values at the date of acquisition primarily included increasing sales volumes; however, the units have experienced lower sales than originally projected.

The Company did not identify any triggering events during the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2016 that would require an interim impairment assessment of goodwill or indefinite life intangible assets. There was no impairment of goodwill or indefinite life intangible assets during the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2016.

Although the Company has not identified any triggering events in 2016 that would require a more frequent test for impairment, the reporting unit with a lower excess fair value over its carrying value (as described above), as determined in the prior year’s annual assessment, is experiencing lower than forecasted results through the first nine months of 2016.  This reporting unit has goodwill and tradename intangible assets of $77.9 million and $5.0 million, respectively, as of September 30, 2016.  The Company is currently in the process of analyzing internal strategic initiatives to improve operating performance, and forecasting for 2017 and future years as part of its annual impairment assessment, which is performed as of October 1, and will be completed in the fourth quarter.  As of the date of this filing, the Company has not yet completed its assessment.

10

The Company recorded a total of $9.7 million and $17.9 million related to the non-current portion of the earn-out liability in “other liabilities” on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively.  In the second quarter of 2016, the Company settled $3.2 million of the earn-out due by exchanging the liability for accounts receivable acquired in conjunction with the acquisition that remained uncollected as of June 30, 2016.  This offset was agreed to in the original terms of the Zhongli acquisition agreement.

Debt consisted of the following at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015:

During the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2016, the Company made prepayments of $13.0 million and $23.3 million, respectively, on the outstanding balance of the term loan.  These prepayments were applied to future principal payments due under the term loan.  Scheduled principal payments under our Credit Facility is $2.1 million for the remainder of 2016, $9.3 million in 2017, $12.1 million in 2018, $14.3 million in 2019 and $97.4 million in 2020.

United States Debt

As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, $16.9 million and $15.4 million of letters of credit were outstanding, respectively. Total unused credit availability under the Company’s senior secured term loan, senior secured U.S. dollar revolving loans with sub-facilities for letters of credit and swing-line loans and senior secured multi-currency revolving credit

11

facility for U.S. dollar and spe cific foreign currency loans (collectively, the “Credit Facility”) was $63.1 million and $56.6 million at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Revolving loans may be borrowed, repaid and reborrowed until September 3, 2020, at which time all amounts borrowed pursuant to the Credit Facility must be repaid.

The weighted average interest rate on outstanding borrowings was 3.19% and 3.42% at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively.

In accordance with the Credit Facility terms, the Company entered into an interest rate swap on December 30, 2015 to hedge against interest rate exposure related to approximately one-third of the outstanding debt indexed to LIBOR market rates. The fair value of the interest rate swap was a liability totaling $1.2 million and $0.4 million at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, which is recorded in “Accounts payable and accrued expenses” on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company did not designate the interest rate swap as an effective hedge until the first quarter of 2016, and accordingly the change in the fair value until the date of designation of $0.5 million was recorded in earnings in “Other income (expense), net” in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2016. From the date of designation, all changes to the fair value of the interest rate swap have been recorded in other comprehensive income (loss) as the hedge is deemed effective.

As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company was in compliance with all related financial and other restrictive covenants under the Credit Agreement.

Foreign Debt

A subsidiary of the Company located in the Netherlands has a Euro denominated facilities agreement with ING Bank N.V. (“Aarding Facility”) with a total borrowing capacity of $14.6 million.  As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the borrowers were in compliance with all related financial and other restrictive covenants. As of September 30, 2016, $2.4 million of the bank guarantee and  $0.3 million of the overdraft facility are being used by the borrowers. As of December 31, 2015,  $6.6 million of the bank guarantee and  $5.3 million of the overdraft facility was being used by the Company.  There is no stated expiration date on the Aarding Facility.

A subsidiary of the Company located in China has a Chinese Yuan Renminbi denominated short-term loan with Bank of America (“China Facility”) with an amount outstanding of $1.4 million as of September 30, 2016 at an interest rate of 4.79%, which matures in October 2016 and was subsequently renewed on a short term basis.

The computational components of basic and diluted earnings per share for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015 are below.

12

Options, restricted stock units and warrants included in the computation of diluted earnings per share are calculated using the treasury stock method. For the three-month periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, 1.1 million and 1.3 million, respectively, and 1.4 million and 1.3 million during the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, of outstanding options and warrants were excluded from the computation of diluted earnings per share due to their having an anti-dilutive effect.

Once a restricted stock unit vests, it is included in the computation of weighted average shares outstanding for purposes of basic and diluted earnings per share.

On August 8, 2016, the Company declared and, on September 30, 2016, paid to common stockholders a quarterly dividend of $0.066 per share. The dividend policy and the payment of cash dividends under that policy are subject to the Board of Directors’ continuing determination that the dividend policy and the declaration of dividends are in the best interest of the Company’s stockholders. Future dividends and the dividend policy may be changed or cancelled at the Company’s discretion at any time. Payment of dividends is also subject to the continuing compliance with our financial covenants under our Credit Facility.

The Company accounts for stock-based compensation in accordance with ASC Topic 718, “Compensation – Stock Compensation,” which requires the Company to recognize compensation expense for stock-based awards, measured at the fair value of the awards at the grant date. The Company recognized expense of $0.6 million and $0.4 million during the three-month periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and $1.7 million and $1.3 million during the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively.      

The Company granted no options during the three-month period ended September 30, 2016  and 154,000 options during the three-month period ended September 30, 2015.  The Company granted approximately 100,000 and 250,000 options during the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively.  The weighted-average fair value of stock options granted during the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015 was estimated at $2.07 and $4.53 per option, respectively, using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model based on the following assumptions:

Expected Volatility: The Company utilizes a volatility factor based on the Company’s historical stock prices for a period of time equal to the expected term of the stock option utilizing weekly price observations. For the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, the Company utilized a weighted-average volatility factor of 39% and 45%, respectively.

Expected Term: For the nine months ended September 30, 2016, and 2015, the Company utilized a weighted-average expected term factor of 6.5 years and 6.4 years, respectively.

Risk-Free Interest Rate: The risk-free interest rate factor utilized is based upon the implied yields currently available on U.S. Treasury zero-coupon issues over the expected term of the stock options. For the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, the Company utilized a weighted-average risk-free interest rate factor of 2.1% and 1.9%, respectively.

13

Expected Dividends: The Company utilized a weighted average expected dividend rate of 3.6% and 2.3% to value options granted during the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

The Company granted approximately 165,000 and 310,000 restricted stock units during the three-month periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and approximately 270,000 and 320,000 restricted stock units during the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The weighted-average fair value of restricted stock units granted during the nine months periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015 was estimated at $9.77 and $9.48 per unit, respectively, using the value of stock in the open market on the date of grant.

The fair value of the stock-based awards granted is recorded as compensation expense on a straight-line basis over the vesting periods of the awards adjusted for the Company’s estimate of pre-vesting forfeitures. The pre-vesting forfeiture estimate is based on historical activity and is reviewed periodically and updated as necessary. There is a portion of the outstanding restricted stock units that have both performance and service-based vesting conditions. The Company has determined that the performance condition is likely to be met. As such, the related expense will be recognized over the service period.

There were approximately 74,000 options exercised during the nine months ended September 30, 2016. The Company received $0.5 million and $0.1 million in cash from employees and directors exercising options during the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The intrinsic value of options exercised during the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015 was $0.2 million.   

During the nine-month period ended September 30, 2016, the Company repurchased 30,000 shares of common stock from a former owner of a subsidiary acquired by the Company in a previous year for a total cost of $0.2 million. The shares were immediately retired.

We sponsor a non-contributory defined benefit pension plan for certain union employees. The plan is funded in accordance with the funding requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

We also sponsor a postretirement health care plan for office employees retired before January 1, 1990. The plan allowed retirees who attained the age of 65 to elect the type of coverage desired.

Retirement and health care plan expense is based on valuations performed by plan actuaries as of the beginning of each fiscal year. The components of the expense consisted of the following:

We made contributions to our defined benefit plans during the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015 totaling $29,000 and $0.4 million, respectively. We do not anticipate any further contributions to fund the pension plans and anticipate $25,000 of contributions for the retiree health care plan during the remainder of 2016. The unfunded liability of the plans of $11.0 million as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 is included in Other Liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

14

The Company files income tax returns in various federal, state and local jurisdictions. The Company is no longer subject to federal, state and local income tax examinations by tax authorities for years before 2013.

The Company accounts for uncertain tax positions pursuant to ASC Topic 740, “Income Taxes.” As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the liability for uncertain tax positions totaled approximately $0.4 million and $1.0 million, respectively, which is included in Other Liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company recognizes interest accrued related to uncertain tax positions in interest expense and penalties in income tax expense.  The Company has not recorded deferred income taxes on the undistributed earnings of its foreign subsidiaries because of management’s intent to indefinitely reinvest such earnings.

Our financial instruments consist primarily of investments in cash and cash equivalents, receivables and certain other assets, foreign debt and accounts payable, which approximate fair value at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, due to their short-term nature or variable, market-driven interest rates.

The fair value of the debt issued under the Credit Agreement was $135.2 million and $174.8 million at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively.

In accordance with the terms of the Credit Agreement, the Company entered into an interest rate swap on December 30, 2015 to hedge against interest rate exposure related to approximately one-third of the outstanding debt indexed to LIBOR market rates. See Note 8 for further information regarding the interest rate swap.

At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we had cash and cash equivalents of $41.8 million and $34.2 million, respectively, of which $22.0 million and $18.0 million, respectively, was held outside of the United States, principally in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, China, and Canada.  

Restricted cash is held by the Company to support letters of credit issued in foreign jurisdictions to support Company operations.  The Company occasionally enters into letters of credit with durations in excess of one year.

Denton Facility

On June 2, 2016, the Company entered into an agreement to sell its manufacturing facility in Denton, Texas for gross proceeds of $5.0 million, less costs associated with the transaction of $0.3 million, or net proceeds of $4.7 million.  As a part of the transaction, the Company entered into a lease for the property from the purchaser for a period of 13 years.  

Prior to the consummation of the above transaction, the Company entered into a sublease agreement with a supplier of the Company at this facility for a period of five years.  Due to the Company’s continuing involvement through the sublease agreement, the Company has accounted for the sale-leaseback as a financing liability.  Payments made by the Company are allocated between interest expense and a reduction to the sale-leaseback financing liability.  The weighted-average effective interest rate of the sale-leaseback financing liability was 2.22%.

As of September 30, 2016, future payments on the sale-leaseback financing liability are as follows (in thousands):

15

As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the net carrying value of the Denton facility assets that are included in property, plant, and equipment on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets amounted to $12.6 million and $13.1 million, respectively.  The useful life of these assets was modified to the remainder of the lease’s duration.  

Telford Facility

On June 2, 2016, the Company entered into an agreement to sell its manufacturing facility in Telford, Pennsylvania for gross proceeds of $6.0 million, less costs associated with the transaction of $0.4 million, or net proceeds of $5.6 million.  As a part of the transaction, the Company entered into a lease for the property from the purchaser for a period of 13 years.  

The Company recorded a deferred gain on the sale of this facility in the amount of $2.4 million recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as an offset to property, plant, and equipment, which will be recognized over the 13-year lease term.  As a result of this transaction, the Company initially recorded a capital lease obligation of $5.7 million for the facilities leased.  The weighted-average effective interest rate of the capital lease was 3.43%.

Indianapolis Facility

On August 16, 2016, the Company entered into an agreement to sell its manufacturing facility in Indianapolis, Indiana for gross proceeds of $3.3 million, less costs associated with the transaction of $0.1 million, or net proceeds of $3.2 million.  As a part of the transaction, the Company entered into a lease for the property from the purchaser for a period of 13 years.  

The Company recorded a deferred gain on the sale of this facility in the amount of $2.0 million recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as an offset to property, plant, and equipment, which will be recognized over the 13-year lease term.  As a result of this transaction, the Company initially recorded a capital lease obligation of $3.0 million for the facilities leased.  The weighted-average effective interest rate of the capital lease was 3.25%.

The future minimum payments for both capital leases that the Company entered into as of September 30, 2016, are as follows (in thousands):

16

Prior to the execution of these transactions, the Company did not have any assets held under capital leases.  Capital lease assets included in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as part of property, plant, and equipment as of September 30, 2016, are as follows (in thousands):

Asbestos cases

Our subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC (“Met-Pro”), beginning in 2002, began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management’s opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company’s insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of exposure to Met-Pro’s products. In those cases where evidence has been produced, the Company’s experience has been that the exposure levels are low and the Company’s position has been that its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through September 30, 2016 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $1.1 million, of which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel expenses; $1.0 million have been paid by the Company’s insurers. The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately $30,000.

Based upon the most recent information available to the Company regarding such claims, there were a total of 217 cases pending against the Company as of September 30, 2016 (with Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases), as compared with 221 cases that were pending as of December 31, 2015. During the nine months ended September 30, 2016, 55 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 56 cases and settled 3 cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

17

Valero

One of our subsidiaries, Fisher-Klosterman, Inc. (“FKI”), was a defendant in a products liability lawsuit filed in Harris County, Texas on August 23, 2010 by three Valero refining companies. The plaintiffs claimed that FKI (and its co-Defendants) used an allegedly defective refractory material included in cyclones it supplied to Valero that caused damages to refineries they own and operate. Plaintiffs claimed to have suffered property damages, including catalyst loss, regenerator repair costs, replacement part costs, damage to other property and business interruption loss. During the third quarter of 2014, the Company reached a settlement with the plaintiffs for $0.5 million and, accordingly, recorded a corresponding charge to operations. In addition, the Company reached an agreement with a supplier to recover $0.2 million related to this matter. The recovery was also recorded during the third quarter of 2014. The Company’s insurer, who had paid for the legal defense in this matter, initiated a new case in the Southern District of Ohio against the Company in October 2014 seeking, among other things, recoupment of past legal costs paid.  The Southern District of Ohio subsequently ruled in April 2016 that the Company’s insurer did have a duty to defend the Company.  The Company is vigorously disputing this claim, including the pursuit of counterclaims against the insurer, and obtained a preliminary ruling that its insurer was obligated to provide the Company a defense for the Valero litigation.

PMFG shareholder lawsuits

Since the public announcement of the proposed merger on May 4, 2015, CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II, PMFG and the members of the PMFG board of directors have been named as defendants in three lawsuits related to the acquisition, which were filed by alleged stockholders of PMFG on May 17, 2015, June 29, 2015 and July 17, 2015. The first filed lawsuit, which is a derivative action that also purports to assert class claims, was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the “Texas Lawsuit”). The second and third filed lawsuits, which are class actions, were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and have now been consolidated into a single action (the “Delaware Lawsuit,” and collectively with the Texas Lawsuit, the “Lawsuits”). In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs generally allege that the merger failed to properly value PMFG, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the related merger agreement, and that those breaches were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II .

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, (a) that the PMFG board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the merger for inadequate consideration and pursuant to a tainted process by (1) agreeing to lock up the merger with deal protection devices that, notwithstanding the ability of PMFG to solicit actively alternative transactions, prevent other bidders from making a successful competing offer for PMFG, (2) participating in a transaction where the loyalties of the PMFG board of directors and management are divided, and (3) relying on financial and legal advisors who plaintiffs allege were conflicted; (b) that those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II and PMFG, and (c) that the disclosure provided in the registration statement filed by CECO on June 9, 2015 was inadequate in a number of respects.

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, (a) to enjoin the defendants from completing the merger on the agreed-upon terms, (b) rescission, to the extent already implemented, of the merger agreement or any of the terms therein, and (c) costs and disbursements and attorneys’ and experts’ fees, as well as other equitable relief as the courts deem proper.

Effective as of August 23, 2015, PMFG and the other defendants entered a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit regarding the settlement of the Delaware Lawsuit. In connection with this memorandum of understanding, PMFG agreed to make certain additional disclosures to PMFG’s stockholders in order to supplement those contained in the joint proxy statement/prospectus. After PMFG enters into a definitive agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit, the proposed settlement will be subject to notice to the class, Court approval, and, if the Court approves the settlement, the settlement, as outlined in the memorandum of understanding, will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the Delaware Lawsuit, including all claims relating to the decision to enter into the Mergers, entry of the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith including any such claims against CECO, Merger Sub I or Merger Sub II, but did not affect any stockholder’s rights to pursue appraisal rights. It is expected that the resolution of the Delaware Lawsuit will also resolve the Texas Lawsuit, which was stayed voluntarily by the plaintiff, but placed on Texas court’s two-week docket for a non-jury trial on August 15, 2016.  On May 11, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement and setting a hearing on July 13, 2016 during which it would consider whether to enter an order granting final approval of the proposed settlement.

On September 1, 2016, the plaintiffs withdrew from the settlement and filed a notice of dismissal of their claims with prejudice.  On September 2, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs’ request and dismissed their claims with prejudice.  The Court retained jurisdiction to consider any applications for “mootness” based attorneys’ fees and expenses from plaintiffs and/or the counsel for the objector.  Briefing on the attorneys’ fees request is ongoing.

18

Summary

The Company is also a party to routine contract and employment-related litigation matters and routine audits of state and local tax returns arising in the ordinary course of its business.

The final outcome and impact of open matters, and related claims and investigations that may be brought in the future, are subject to many variables, and cannot be predicted. In accordance with ASC 450, “Contingencies,” and related guidance, we record reserves for estimated losses relating to claims and lawsuits when available information indicates that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. The Company expenses legal costs as they are incurred.

We are not aware of pending claims or assessments, other than as described above, which may have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

PMFG

On September 3, 2015, the Company completed its acquisition of 100% of PMFG’s outstanding common stock for a purchase price of $136.7 million. PMFG’s shareholders had the option to elect to exchange each share of PMFG common stock for either (i) $6.85 in cash, without interest, or (ii) shares of the Company’s common stock valued at $6.85, based on the volume weighted average trading price of the Company’s common stock for the 15-trading day period ending on September 2, 2015, the last trading day before the closing of the acquisition, subject to a collar so that there was a maximum exchange ratio of 0.6456 shares of the Company’s common stock for each share of PMFG common stock and a minimum exchange ratio of 0.5282 shares of the Company’s common stock for each share of PMFG common stock, subject to certain exceptions and with overall elections subject to proration.

Approximately 44.5% of the shares of PMFG common stock converted into the right to receive the $6.85 cash consideration, for an approximate total of $64.6 million. The Company’s common stock trading price for the 15-trading day period was $9.6655. As a result, each of the remaining shares of PMFG common stock converted into the right to receive 0.6456 shares of Company common stock, or an approximate total of 7,602,166 shares of Company common stock in aggregate.

In accordance with the proration and reallocation provisions of the merger agreement, because the $6.85 per share cash consideration was oversubscribed by PMFG shareholders prior to the election deadline, (a) each PMFG share for which a valid stock election was made or for which no valid cash or stock election was made was automatically cancelled and converted into the right to receive the stock consideration and (b) each PMFG shareholder of record that made a valid cash election by the deadline received (i) the cash consideration for approximately 58.05% of such holder’s PMFG shares for which a valid cash election was made and (ii) the stock consideration for approximately 41.95% of such holder’s PMFG shares for which a valid cash election was made. The value of stock recorded for purchase accounting was $72.1 million, which equates to approximately $9.49 per share.

PMFG is a global provider of engineered equipment for the abatement of air pollution, the separation and filtration of contaminants from gases and liquids, and industrial noise control equipment, which complements our Energy Segment businesses.

As a result of the PMFG acquisition, the Company acquired a 60% equity investment in Peerless Propulsys that entitled the Company to 80% of Peerless Propulsys’s earnings.  In prior periods, the noncontrolling interest of Peerless Propulsys was reported as a separate component on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  During the third quarter, the Company entered into an agreement with the noncontrolling owner of Peerless Propulsys and issued a promissory note in the amount of $5.3 million due on July 11, 2019 in exchange for 100% ownership in the equity and earnings of Peerless Propulsys.  The minority interest had a carrying value of $4.1 million on July 11, 2016, after the purchase accounting adjustment noted in the following paragraph, compared to the purchase price of $5.3 million.  Since the Company already had control over the equity investment, the excess paid of $1.2 million was recorded as a debit to additional paid in capital.   The interest rate on the note payable is 1.50%, which approximates the market rate given the short term duration of the note payable.  All of the borrowers’ assets are pledged to secure this agreement. As of September 30, 2016, $5.3 million of this note payable was outstanding. The note is payable at the earlier of July 11, 2019 or thirty days subsequent to the sale of building and land that the Company owns in China.  As the Company intends to sell this building and land within one year of September 30, 2016, this note payable is currently classified as a current liability in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2016.   In

19

conjunction with the entering into the agreement to acquire the noncontrollin g interest of Peerless Propulsys, the Company listed the land and building as assets held for sale in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2016.  

Additionally, during the third quarter of 2016, in concluding purchase accounting, the fair value of the building and land owned by Peerless Propulsys and the minority interest was finalized.  The fair value of the building and land was determined to be approximately $6.2 million, which resulted in a reduction of $5.2 million to the value of the building and land acquired as of the date of closing.  The corresponding fair value of the noncontrolling interest was then determined to be approximately $4.2 million, which resulted in a reduction of $1.8 million to the value of the noncontrolling interest acquired as of the date of closing.  

The following table summarizes the approximate fair values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed at the date of closing after the Company finalized purchase accounting during 2016.

For the three months ended September 30, 2016, PMFG accounted for $23.9 million of revenue and $3.7 million of pre-tax income included in the Company’s results.  For the nine months ended September 30, 2016, PMFG accounted for $73.8 million of revenue and $8.6 million of pre-tax income included in the Company’s results.

The fair values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed, and the related tax balances were finalized during the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

The following unaudited pro forma information represents the Company’s results of operations as if the PMFG acquisition had occurred as of January 1, 2014:

The pro forma results have been prepared for informational purposes only and include adjustments to amortize acquired intangible assets with finite life, reflect foregone interest income on cash paid for the acquisitions, reflect additional interest expense on debt used to fund the acquisitions, and to record the income tax consequences of the pro forma adjustments. Included in the pro forma results are acquisition related expenses of $15.5 million and $16.8 million for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2015 respectively. Shares used to calculate the basic and diluted loss per share were adjusted to reflect the additional shares of common stock issued to fund a portion of the acquisition price. These pro forma

20

results do not purport to be indicative of the results of operations that would have occurred had the purchases been made a s of the beginning of the periods presented or of the results of operations that may occur in the future.

Acquisition and integration expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations are related to acquisition activities, which include retention, legal, accounting, banking, and other expenses.

The Company’s operations are organized and reviewed by management along its product lines and presented in three reportable segments.

Environmental Segment

Our Environmental segment provides the design and manufacture of product recovery and air pollution control technologies that enable our customers to meet compliance targets for toxic emissions, fumes, volatile organic compounds, process and industrial odors. These products and solutions include chemical and biological scrubbers, fabric filters and cartridge collectors, thermal and catalytic oxidation systems, cyclones, separators, gas absorbers and industrial ventilation systems. This segment also provides component parts for industrial air systems and provides cost effective alternatives to traditional duct components, as well as custom metal engineered fabrication services. These products and services are applicable to a wide variety of industries.

Energy Segment

Our Energy segment provides customized solutions for the power and petrochemical industry. This includes gas turbine exhaust systems, dampers and diverters, gas and liquid separation and filtration equipment, selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) and selective non-catalytic reduction (“SNCR”) systems, acoustical components and silencers, secondary separators (nuclear plant reactor vessels) and expansion joints, the design and manufacture of technologies for flue gas and diverter dampers, non-metallic expansion joints, natural gas turbine exhaust systems, and silencer and precipitator applications, primarily for coal-fired and natural gas power plants, refining, oil production and petrochemical processing, as well as a variety of other industries.

Fluid Handling and Filtration Segment

Our Fluid Handling and Filtration (“FHF”) segment provides the design and manufacture of high quality pump, filtration and fume exhaust solutions. This includes centrifugal pumps for corrosive, abrasive and high temperature liquids, filter products for air and liquid filtration, precious metal recovery systems, carbonate precipitators, and technologically advanced air movement and exhaust systems. These products are applicable to a wide variety of industries, particularly the aquarium/aquaculture, plating and metal finishing, food and beverage, chemical/petrochemical, wastewater treatment, desalination and pharmaceutical markets.

The accounting policies of the reporting segments are the same as those described in the summary of significant accounting policies in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 filed with the SEC. Interest income and expense are not included in the measure of segment profit reviewed by management. Income taxes are also not included in the measure of segment operating profit reviewed by management. The operating results of the segments are reviewed through to the “Income from operations” line on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The financial segment information is presented in the following tables: