XML 34 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies | Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies We are a party to or have property subject to litigation and other proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment and are subject to contingencies related to certain businesses we previously owned. These types of matters could result in fines, penalties, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary sanctions or relief. We believe the probability is remote that the outcome of each of these matters, including the legal proceedings described below, will have a material adverse effect on the corporation as a whole, notwithstanding that the unfavorable resolution of any matter may have a material effect on our net earnings in any particular interim reporting period. Among the factors that we consider in this assessment are the nature of existing legal proceedings and claims, the asserted or possible damages or loss contingency (if estimable), the progress of the case, existing law and precedent, the opinions or views of legal counsel and other advisers, our experience in similar cases and the experience of other companies, the facts available to us at the time of assessment and how we intend to respond to the proceeding or claim. Our assessment of these factors may change over time as individual proceedings or claims progress. Although we cannot predict the outcome of legal or other proceedings with certainty, where there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred, GAAP requires us to disclose an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss or make a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. We follow a thorough process in which we seek to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, and only if we are unable to make such an estimate do we conclude and disclose that an estimate cannot be made. Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated below in our discussion of legal proceedings, a reasonably possible loss or range of loss associated with any individual legal proceeding cannot be estimated. Legal Proceedings As a result of our acquisition of Sikorsky, we assumed the defense of and any potential liability for two civil False Claims Act lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In October 2014, the U.S. Government filed a complaint in intervention in the first suit, which was brought by qui tam relator Mary Patzer, a former Derco Aerospace (Derco) employee. In May 2017, the U.S. Government filed a complaint in intervention in the second suit, which was brought by qui tam relator Peter Cimma, a former Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. (SSSI) employee. In November 2017, the Court consolidated the cases into a single action for discovery and trial. The U.S. Government alleges that Sikorsky and two of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Derco and SSSI, violated the civil False Claims Act, the Anti-Kickback Act, and the Truth in Negotiations Act in connection with a contract the U.S. Navy awarded to SSSI in June 2006 to support the Navy’s T-34 and T-44 fixed-wing turboprop training aircraft. SSSI subcontracted with Derco, primarily to procure and manage spare parts for the training aircraft. The U.S. Government alleges that SSSI overbilled the Navy on the contract as the result of Derco’s use of prohibited cost-plus-percentage-of-cost pricing to add profit and overhead costs as a percentage of the price of the spare parts that Derco procured and then sold to SSSI. The U.S. Government alleges that Derco’s claims to SSSI, SSSI’s claims to the Navy, and SSSI’s yearly Certificates of Final Indirect Costs from 2006 through 2012 were false. In addition to violations of the False Claims Act, the U.S. Government alleges violations of the Anti-Kickback Act based on a monthly “chargeback,” through which SSSI billed Derco for the cost of certain SSSI personnel, allegedly in exchange for SSSI’s permitting a pricing arrangement that was “highly favorable” to Derco. The U.S. Government also claims that SSSI submitted inaccurate cost or pricing data in violation of the Truth in Negotiations Act for a sole-sourced, follow-on “bridge” contract. The U.S. Government’s complaints assert common law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. On January 12, 2018, the Corporation filed a partial motion to dismiss intended to narrow the Government’s claims. The Corporation also moved to dismiss Cimma as a party under the False Claims Act’s first-to-file rule, which permits only the first relator to recover in a pending case. The U.S. Government currently seeks damages in these lawsuits of approximately $52 million, subject to trebling, plus statutory penalties. We believe that we have legal and factual defenses to the U.S. Government’s claims. Although we continue to evaluate our liability and exposure, we do not currently believe that it is probable that we will incur a material loss. If, contrary to our expectations, the U.S. Government prevails in this matter and proves damages at or near $52 million and is successful in having such damages trebled, the outcome could have an adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which a liability is recognized and on our cash flows for the period in which any damages are paid. On April 24, 2009, we filed a declaratory judgment action against the MTA asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to find that the MTA is in material breach of our agreement based on the MTA’s failure to provide access to sites where work must be performed and the customer-furnished equipment necessary to complete the contract. The MTA filed an answer and counterclaim alleging that we breached the contract and subsequently terminated the contract for alleged default. The primary damages sought by the MTA are the cost to complete the contract and potential re-procurement costs. While we are unable to estimate the cost of another contractor to complete the contract and the costs of re-procurement, we note that our contract with the MTA had a total value of $323 million, of which $241 million was paid to us, and that the MTA is seeking damages of approximately $190 million. We dispute the MTA’s allegations and are defending against them. Additionally, following an investigation, our sureties on a performance bond related to this matter, who were represented by independent counsel, concluded that the MTA’s termination of the contract was improper. Finally, our declaratory judgment action was later amended to include claims for monetary damages against the MTA of approximately $95 million. This matter was taken under submission by the District Court in December 2014, after a five-week bench trial and the filing of post-trial pleadings by the parties. We continue to await a decision from the District Court. Although this matter relates to our former IS&GS business, we retained the litigation when we divested IS&GS. Environmental Matters We are involved in proceedings and potential proceedings relating to soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater contamination, disposal of hazardous waste and other environmental matters at several of our current or former facilities and at third-party sites where we have been designated as a potentially responsible party (PRP). A substantial portion of environmental costs will be included in our net sales and cost of sales in future periods pursuant to U.S. Government regulations. At the time a liability is recorded for future environmental costs, we record a receivable for estimated future recovery considered probable through the pricing of products and services to agencies of the U.S. Government, regardless of the contract form (e.g., cost-reimbursable, fixed-price). We continually evaluate the recoverability of our environmental receivables by assessing, among other factors, U.S. Government regulations, our U.S. Government business base and contract mix, our history of receiving reimbursement of such costs, and efforts by some U.S. Government representatives to limit such reimbursement. We include the portion of those environmental costs expected to be allocated to our non-U.S. Government contracts, or that is determined not to be recoverable under U.S. Government contracts, in our cost of sales at the time the liability is established. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, the aggregate amount of liabilities recorded relative to environmental matters was $920 million and $1.0 billion, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets. We have recorded receivables totaling $799 million and $870 million at December 31, 2017 and 2016, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent assets on our consolidated balance sheets, for the estimated future recovery of these costs, as we consider the recovery probable based on the factors previously mentioned. We project costs and recovery of costs over approximately 20 years. Environmental remediation activities usually span many years, which makes estimating liabilities a matter of judgment because of uncertainties with respect to assessing the extent of the contamination as well as such factors as changing remediation technologies and changing regulatory environmental standards. There are a number of former and present operating facilities that we are monitoring or investigating for potential future remediation. We perform quarterly reviews of the status of our environmental remediation sites and the related liabilities and receivables. Additionally, in our quarterly reviews, we consider these and other factors in estimating the timing and amount of any future costs that may be required for remediation activities and record a liability when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the loss can be reasonably estimated. The amount of liability recorded is based on our estimate of the costs to be incurred for remediation at a particular site. We do not discount the recorded liabilities, as the amount and timing of future cash payments are not fixed or cannot be reliably determined. We reasonably cannot determine the extent of our financial exposure in all cases as, although a loss may be probable or reasonably possible, in some cases it is not possible at this time to estimate the loss or reasonably possible loss or range of loss. We also pursue claims for recovery of costs incurred or contribution to site cleanup costs against other PRPs, including the U.S. Government, and are conducting remediation activities under various consent decrees, orders, and agreements relating to soil, groundwater, sediment or surface water contamination at certain sites of former or current operations. Under agreements related to certain sites in California and New York, the U.S. Government reimburses us an amount equal to a percentage, specific to each site, of expenditures for certain remediation activities in the U.S. Government’s capacity as a PRP under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). In addition to the proceedings and potential proceedings discussed above, California previously established a maximum level of the contaminant hexavalent chromium in drinking water of 10 parts per billion (ppb). Recently, this standard was successfully challenged by the California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA) for failure to conduct the required economic feasibility analysis. In response to the court’s ruling, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), a branch of the California Environmental Protection Agency, withdrew the hexavalent chromium standard from the published regulations, leaving only the 50 ppb standard for total chromium. The State Board has indicated it will work to re-establish a hexavalent chromium standard. If the standard for hexavalent chromium is re-established at 10 ppb or above, it will not have a material impact on our existing remediation costs in California. Further, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is considering whether to regulate hexavalent chromium. California is also reevaluating its existing drinking water standard of 6 ppb for perchlorate, and the U.S. EPA is taking steps to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. If substantially lower standards are adopted, in either California or at the federal level for perchlorate or for hexavalent chromium, we expect a material increase in our estimates for environmental liabilities and the related assets for the portion of the increased costs that are probable of future recovery in the pricing of our products and services for the U.S. Government. The amount that would be allocable to our non-U.S. Government contracts or that is determined not to be recoverable under U.S. Government contracts would be expensed, which may have a material effect on our earnings in any particular interim reporting period. Operating Leases We rent certain equipment and facilities under operating leases. Certain major plant facilities and equipment are furnished by the U.S. Government under short-term or cancelable arrangements. Our total rental expense under operating leases was $169 million, $202 million and $195 million for 2017, 2016 and 2015. Future minimum lease commitments at December 31, 2017 for long-term non-cancelable operating leases were $623 million ($162 million in 2018, $154 million in 2019, $116 million in 2020, $82 million in 2021, $54 million in 2022 and $55 million in later years). Letters of Credit, Surety Bonds and Third-Party Guarantees We have entered into standby letters of credit and surety bonds issued on our behalf by financial institutions and other directly issued guarantees to third parties primarily relating to advances received from customers and the guarantee of future performance on certain contracts. Letters of credit and surety bonds generally are available for draw down in the event we do not perform. In some cases, we may guarantee the contractual performance of third parties such as venture partners. We had total outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds and third-party guarantees aggregating $3.3 billion at December 31, 2017 and $3.7 billion at December 31, 2016. Third-party guarantees do not include guarantees of subsidiaries and other consolidated entities. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, third-party guarantees totaled $750 million and $709 million, of which approximately 62% and 56% related to guarantees of contractual performance of ventures to which we currently are or previously were a party. This amount represents our estimate of the maximum amount we would expect to incur upon the contractual non-performance of the venture, venture partners or divested businesses. Generally, we also have cross-indemnities in place that may enable us to recover amounts that may be paid on behalf of a venture partner. In determining our exposures, we evaluate the reputation, performance on contractual obligations, technical capabilities and credit quality of our current and former venture partners and the transferee under novation agreements all of which include a guarantee as required by the FAR. There were no material amounts recorded in our financial statements related to third-party guarantees or novation agreements. United Launch Alliance In connection with our 50% ownership interest of ULA, we and The Boeing Company (Boeing) are required to provide ULA an additional capital contribution if ULA is unable to make required payments under its inventory supply agreement with Boeing. As of December 31, 2017, ULA’s total remaining obligation to Boeing under the inventory supply agreement was $120 million. The parties have agreed to defer the remaining payment obligation, as it is more than offset by other commitments to ULA. Accordingly, we do not expect to be required to make a capital contribution to ULA under this agreement. In addition, both we and Boeing have cross-indemnified each other for guarantees by us and Boeing of the performance and financial obligations of ULA under certain launch service contracts. We believe ULA will be able to fully perform its obligations, as it has done through December 31, 2017, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the cross-indemnities or guarantees. Our share of ULA’s net earnings are reported as equity in net earnings (losses) of equity investees in other income, net on our consolidated statements of earnings. Our investment in ULA totaled $794 million and $788 million at December 31, 2017 and 2016.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration