Exhibit 99.4

If we are unable to respond to the changing needs of a particular industry and to anticipate, respond to or utilize changing technologies and develop new offerings, it could become more difficult for us to respond to our customers’ needs and cause us to be less competitive.

We have historically been able to maintain our market positions and margins through continuous innovation of products and development of new offerings to create value for our customers. Recent innovations and developments that we have relied on include our 3D TRASAR system for controlling and monitoring chemical feed. We may not be successful in continuing to make similar innovations in the future. Our future operating results will depend to a significant extent on our ability to continue to introduce new products and applications and to develop new offerings that offer distinct value for our customers. Many of our products may be affected by rapid technological change and new product introductions and enhancements. We expect to continue to enhance our existing products and identify, develop and manufacture new products with improved capabilities and make improvements in our productivity in order to maintain our competitive position. We intend to devote sizeable resources to the development of new technologically advanced products and systems and to continue to devote a substantial amount of expenditures to the research and development functions of our business. However, we cannot assure you that:

Our ability to anticipate, respond to and utilize changing technologies is crucial because we compete with many companies in each of the markets in which we operate. For example, we compete with hundreds of companies in the water treatment chemicals market, including our largest global water treatment competitor, GE Water Technologies. Our ability to compete effectively is based on a number of considerations, such as product and service innovation, product and service quality, distribution capability and price. Moreover, water treatment for industrial customers depends on the particular needs of the industry. For example, the paper industry requires a specific water quality for bleaching paper; certain industrial boilers require demineralized water; the pharmaceuticals industry requires ultra pure water for processing; and, in the case of municipal services, water treatment includes clarification for re-use, sludge dewatering and membrane ultra filtration. We may not have sufficient financial resources to respond to the changing needs of a particular industry and to continue to make investments in our business, which could cause us to become less competitive.

Our substantial leverage could harm our business by limiting our available cash and our access to additional capital.

As of December 31, 2010, our total consolidated indebtedness was $2,872.0 million and we had $230.8 million of borrowing capacity available under our revolving credit facility, which reflects no outstanding borrowings and reduced availability as a result of $19.2 million in outstanding letters of credit. We had $128.1 million of cash and cash equivalents at December 31, 2010.

Our high degree of leverage could have important consequences for investors, including the following:

1

At December 31, 2010, we had $1,162.7 million of variable rate debt. A 1% increase in the average interest rate would increase future interest expense by approximately $11.6 million per year.

Despite our current leverage, we may still be able to substantially increase our indebtedness. This could further exacerbate the risks that we and our subsidiaries face.

We and our subsidiaries may be able to substantially increase our indebtedness in the future. The terms of the indentures governing our subsidiaries’ notes do not fully prohibit our subsidiaries or us from doing so. Nalco Company’s revolving credit facility provides commitments of up to $250.0 million, of which $230.8 million would have been available for future borrowings as of December 31, 2010, due to $19.2 million in outstanding letters of credit. If new debt is added to our current debt levels, the related risks that we and our subsidiaries now face could intensify.

Our subsidiaries’ debt agreements contain restrictions that limit our flexibility in operating our business.

Nalco Company’s senior credit agreement and the indentures governing our subsidiaries’ existing notes contain a number of significant covenants that, among other things, restrict our or our subsidiaries’ ability to:

In addition, under the senior credit agreement, Nalco Holdings LLC is required to satisfy and maintain specified financial ratios and tests. Events beyond our control may affect its ability to comply with those provisions and Nalco Holdings LLC may not be able to meet those ratios and tests. The breach of any of these covenants would result in a default under the senior credit agreement and the lenders could elect to declare all amounts borrowed under the senior credit agreement, together with accrued interest, to be due and payable and could proceed against the collateral securing that indebtedness.

The terms of Nalco Company’s senior credit agreement limit Nalco Holdings LLC and its subsidiaries from paying dividends or otherwise transferring their assets to us.

Our operations are conducted through our subsidiaries and our ability to make payments on any obligations we may have is dependent on the earnings and the distribution of funds from our

2

subsidiaries. However, the terms of Nalco Company’s senior credit agreement limit the amount of dividends and other transfers by Nalco Holdings LLC and its subsidiaries to us.

We could suffer material claims arising from the supply of products and services.

We assume contractual and tort risks as a natural result of providing sophisticated services and products to our customers. Broadly speaking, this includes risk of product liability claims (negligence and strict liability), contract claims, professional liability claims or other tort claims, including Legionella exposure. The types of damage that might be claimed include property damage, personal injury or economic losses. Although we take reasonable steps to limit exposure to these types of claims and mitigate losses should a claim occur, the nature of our business raises the potential of this risk.

Our significant non-U.S. operations expose us to global economic, political and legal risks that could impact our profitability.

We have significant operations outside the United States, including joint ventures and other alliances. We conduct business in approximately 150 countries and, in 2010, approximately 51% of our net sales originated outside the United States and some of our business is conducted in politically unstable countries. There are inherent risks in our international operations, including:

Our international operations also expose us to different local political and business risks and challenges. For example, in certain countries we are faced with periodic political issues that could result in difficulties in collecting receivables or realizing other assets, currency risks or the risk that we are required to include local ownership or management in our businesses. Also, because of uncertainties regarding the interpretation and application of laws and regulations and the enforceability of intellectual property and contract rights, we face risks in some countries that our intellectual property rights and contract rights would not be enforced by local governments. We are also periodically faced with the risk of economic uncertainty, which has impacted our business in these countries. Other risks in international business also include difficulties in staffing and managing local operations, including our obligations to design local solutions to manage credit risk to local customers and distributors.

Further, our operations outside the United States require us to comply with a number of United States and international regulations, including anti-corruption laws such as the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act. We have internal policies, practices and training relating to such regulations. However, there is risk that such policies and procedures will not always protect us from the reckless acts of employees or representatives, and violations of such laws could result in investigations of the Company and sanctions.

Our overall success as a global business depends, in part, upon our ability to succeed in differing economic, social, legal and political conditions. We may not continue to succeed in developing and implementing policies and strategies that are effective in each location where we do business, which could negatively affect our profitability.

3

Our subsidiaries are defendants in pending lawsuits alleging negligence and injury resulting from the use of our COREXIT dispersant in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which could expose us to monetary damages or settlement costs.

On April 22, 2010, the deepwater drilling platform, the Deepwater Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP plc, sank in the Gulf of Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began on April 20, 2010. A massive oil spill resulted. Approximately one week following the incident, subsidiaries of BP plc, under the authorization of the responding federal agencies, formally requested our indirect subsidiary, Nalco Company, to supply large quantities of COREXIT 9500, a Nalco oil dispersant product listed on the U.S. EPA National Contingency Plan Product Schedule. Nalco Company responded immediately by providing available COREXIT and increasing production to supply the product to BP’s subsidiaries for use, as authorized and directed by agencies of the federal government. Prior to the incident, Nalco Holding Company and its subsidiaries had not provided products or services or otherwise had any involvement with the Deepwater Horizon platform. On July 15, 2010, BP announced that it had capped the leaking well, and the application of dispersants by the responding parties ceased shortly thereafter.

On May 1, 2010, the President appointed retired U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen to serve as the National Incident Commander in charge of the coordination of the response to the incident at the national level. EPA directed numerous tests of all the dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule, including those provided by Nalco Company, “to ensure decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico are grounded in the best available science.” We cooperated with this testing process and continued to supply COREXIT 9500 as requested by BP and government authorities. After review and testing of a number of dispersants, on June 30, 2010, and on August 2, 2010, EPA released toxicity data for eight oil dispersants. The data is available on the EPA Web site at www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants-testing.html.

The use of dispersants by the responding parties has been one tool used by the government and BP to avoid and reduce damage to the Gulf area from the spill. Since the spill occurred, EPA and other federal agencies have closely monitored conditions in areas where dispersant has been applied. We have encouraged ongoing monitoring and review of COREXIT and other dispersants and have cooperated fully with the governmental review and approval process. However, in connection with its provision of COREXIT, Nalco Company is a defendant in several lawsuits as described below.

Nalco Company is a defendant in three putative class action lawsuits relating to the use of our COREXIT dispersant in the Gulf of Mexico in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The actions, as currently pleaded, allege several causes of action, including negligence and gross negligence. The plaintiffs in these actions seek, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. In addition, Nalco Company is a defendant in seven civil actions brought by individual plaintiffs that contains factual allegations substantially similar to the putative class action lawsuits against Nalco Company, with the addition of claims of nuisance, trespass, battery, and strict liability for the physical injuries and property damage allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in those action seek, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Nalco, the incident defendants and the other responder defendants have also been named as a third party defendant by Transocean Deepwater Drilling, Inc.

Nalco has been served in all but two of the actions. Each of these cases has been administratively transferred for pre-trial purposes to a judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana with other related cases under In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) (the “MDL”). Pursuant to orders issued in the MDL, the claims have been consolidated in several master complaints, including one naming Nalco and others who responded to the Gulf Oil Spill (known as the “B3 Bundle”). At this time, we do not know how many cases will be in the B3 Bundle. A tentative list of cases includes fifteen cases (including some putative class actions) in the B3 Bundle. Six cases previously filed against Nalco are not included in the B3 Bundle.

We believe the claims are without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. We also believe that we have rights to contribution and/or indemnification (including legal expenses) from third parties.

4

However, we cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the involvement we might have in these matters in the future or the potential for future litigation. Similar lawsuits may also be filed or the current lawsuits amended, in which event we will provide information in our periodic reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Environmental, safety and production and product regulations or concerns could subject us to liability for fines or damages, require us to modify our operations and increase our manufacturing and delivery costs.

We are subject to the requirements of environmental and occupational safety and health laws and regulations in the United States and other countries. These include obligations to investigate and clean up environmental contamination on or from properties or at off-site locations where we are identified as a responsible party. For example, we are currently identified as a potentially responsible party at certain waste management sites. We have also been named as a defendant in multi-party and individual lawsuits based on claims of exposure to hazardous materials and claims that our products are defective or dangerous. We have also been named as a defendant in lawsuits where our products have not caused injuries, but the claimants wish to be monitored for potential future injuries. We cannot predict with certainty the outcome of any such tort claims or the involvement we or our products might have in such matters in the future and there can be no assurance that the discovery of previously unknown conditions will not require significant expenditures. In each of these chemical exposure cases, our insurance carriers have accepted the claims on our behalf (with or without reservation) and our financial exposure should be limited to the amount of our deductible; however, we cannot predict the number of claims that we may have to defend in the future and we may not be able to continue to maintain such insurance.

We have made and will continue to make capital and other expenditures to comply with environmental requirements. Although we believe we are in material compliance with environmental law requirements, we may not have been and will not at all times be in complete compliance with all of these requirements, and may incur material costs, including fines or damages, or liabilities in connection with these requirements in excess of amounts we have reserved. In addition, these requirements are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent over time. In the future, we may discover previously unknown contamination that could subject us to additional expense and liability. In addition, future requirements could be more onerous than current requirements.

The activities at our production facilities are subject to a variety of federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations (“production regulations”). Similarly, the solid, air and liquid waste streams produced from our production facilities are subject to a variety of regulations (“waste regulations”) and many of our products and the handling of our products are governmentally regulated or registered (“product regulations”). Each of the production, waste and product regulations is subject to expansion or enhancement. Any new or tightened regulations could lead to increases in the direct and indirect costs we incur in manufacturing and delivering products to our customers. For example, the European Commission has imposed new chemical registration requirements on the manufacturers and users of all chemicals, not just those which are considered to be harmful or hazardous. Such regulations, referred to as REACH, will cause all chemical companies to incur additional costs to conduct their businesses in European Commission countries. Similarly, the need for certain of our products and services is dependent upon — or triggered by — governmental regulation, and changes in such regulation could impact our sales of these products or services. In addition to an increase in costs in manufacturing and delivering products, a change in production regulations or product regulations could result in interruptions to our business and potentially cause economic or consequential losses should we be unable to meet the demands of our customers for products.

We may not be able to achieve all of our expected cost savings.

For the years 2004 through 2008, our average annual cost savings were $84 million, during which our historic annual target was $75 million. In both 2010 and 2009, we achieved cost savings of $122 million,

5

which was well above our increased annual goal of $100 million each year. A variety of risks could cause us not to achieve the benefits of our expected cost savings, including, among others, the following:

We have experienced in the past, and could again experience in the future, difficulties in securing the supply of certain raw materials we and our competitors need to manufacture some of our products, and we have also been impacted by significant increases in raw material costs.

In 2004 and 2005, certain of the raw materials used by us and other chemical companies faced supply limitation. If these limitations occur again in the future, we risk shortfalls in our sales and the potential of claims from our customers if we are unable to fully meet contractual requirements.

Also, limitations on raw materials and rising prices for underlying materials have resulted in the past, and could result in the future, in price increases for raw materials we purchase. In the past, our margins have been impacted by such raw materials price increases, and our margins could be similarly impacted in the future if we are unable to pass any future raw material price increases through to our customers.

Our pension plans are currently underfunded and we may have to make significant cash payments to the plans, reducing the cash available for our business.

We sponsor various pension plans worldwide that are underfunded and require significant cash payments. For example, in 2009 and 2010, we contributed $72.9 million and $66.9 million, respectively, to our pension plans. We expect to contribute approximately $66 million to our pension plans in 2011. If the performance of the assets in our pension plans does not meet our expectations, or if other actuarial assumptions are modified, our contributions could be even higher than we expect. If our cash flow from operations is insufficient to fund our worldwide pension liability, we may be forced to reduce or delay capital expenditures, seek additional capital or seek to restructure or refinance our indebtedness.

As of December 31, 2010, our worldwide pension plans were underfunded by $405.1 million (based on the actuarial assumptions used for financial reporting purposes). Our U.S. pension plans are subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or ERISA. Under ERISA, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC, has the authority to terminate an underfunded pension plan under certain circumstances. In the event our U.S. pension plans are terminated for any reason while the plans are underfunded, we will incur a liability to the PBGC that may be equal to the entire amount of the underfunding.

We have recorded a significant amount of goodwill and other identifiable intangible assets, and we may never realize the full value of our intangible assets.

We have recorded a significant amount of goodwill and other identifiable intangible assets, including customer relationships, trademarks and developed technologies. Goodwill and other net identifiable intangible assets were approximately $2.9 billion as of December 31, 2010, or approximately 55% of our total assets. Goodwill, which represents the excess of cost over the fair value of the net assets of the businesses acquired, was $1.8 billion as of December 31, 2010, or 35% of our total assets. Goodwill and net identifiable intangible assets are recorded at fair value on the date of acquisition and, in accordance with authoritative guidance issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, will be reviewed at least annually for impairment. Impairment may result from, among other things, deterioration in our performance, adverse market conditions, adverse changes in applicable laws or regulations, including changes that restrict the activities of or affect the products and services sold by our business, and a

6

variety of other factors. We recognized a $544.2 million goodwill impairment charge in 2008 and an additional $4.9 million charge in 2010, reducing the goodwill balance of our Paper Services reporting unit to zero. Some of the products and services we sell to our customers are dependent upon laws and regulations, and changes to such laws or regulations could impact the demand for our products and services. The amount of any quantified impairment must be expensed immediately as a charge to results of operations. Depending on future circumstances, it is possible that we may never realize the full value of our intangible assets. Any future determination of impairment of a significant portion of goodwill or other identifiable intangible assets would have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our future success will depend in part on our ability to protect our intellectual property rights, and our inability to enforce these rights could permit others to offer products competitive with ours, which could reduce our ability to maintain our market position and maintain our margins.

We rely on the patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret laws of the United States and other countries to protect our intellectual property rights. However, we may be unable to prevent third parties from using our intellectual property without authorization, and we face risks in some countries that our intellectual property rights and contract rights would not be enforced by local governments. The use of our intellectual property by others could reduce any competitive advantage we have developed or otherwise harm our business. If we had to litigate to protect these rights, any proceedings could be costly, and we may not prevail.

We have obtained and applied for several U.S. and foreign trademark registrations, and will continue to evaluate the registration of additional service marks and trademarks, as appropriate. Our pending applications may not be approved by the applicable governmental authorities and, even if the applications are approved, third parties may seek to oppose or otherwise challenge these registrations. A failure to obtain trademark registrations in the United States and in other countries could limit our ability to protect our trademarks and impede our marketing efforts in those jurisdictions.

We may be subject to information technology system failures, network disruptions and breaches in data security.

We rely to a large extent upon sophisticated information technology systems and infrastructure. The size and complexity of our computer systems make them potentially vulnerable to breakdown, malicious intrusion and random attack. Likewise, data privacy breaches by employees and others with permitted access to our systems may pose a risk that sensitive data may be exposed to unauthorized persons or to the public. While we have invested heavily in protection of data and information technology, there can be no assurance that our efforts will prevent breakdowns or breaches in our systems that could adversely affect our business.

The market price of our common stock may be volatile, which could cause the value of your investment to decline.

Securities markets worldwide experience significant price and volume fluctuations. This market volatility, as well as general economic, market or potential conditions, could reduce the market price of our common stock in spite of our operating performance. In addition, our operating results could be below the expectations of securities analysts and investors, and in response, the market price of our common stock could decrease significantly.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws and Delaware law may discourage a takeover attempt.

Provisions contained in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws and Delaware law could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so might be beneficial to our stockholders. Provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws impose various procedural and other requirements, which could make it more difficult for stockholders to effect

7

certain corporate actions. For example, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation authorizes our Board of Directors to determine the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions of unissued series of preferred stock, without any vote or action by our stockholders. Thus, our Board of Directors can authorize and issue shares of preferred stock with voting or conversion rights that could adversely affect the voting or other rights of holders of our common stock. These rights may have the effect of delaying or deterring a change of control of our company. In addition, a change of control of our company may be delayed or deterred as a result of our having three classes of directors. Additionally, Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law provides that, subject to specified exceptions, a Delaware corporation shall not engage in business combinations with any entity that acquires enough shares of our common stock without the consent of our Board of Directors to be considered an “interested stockholder” under Delaware law for a three-year period following the time that the stockholder became an interested stockholder. These provisions could limit the price that certain investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock.

8