EX-99.1 10 v57513orexv99w1.htm EX-99.1 exv99w1
Table of Contents

EXHIBIT 99.1
(NORTHROP GRUMMAN LOGO)
     , 20
Dear Northrop Grumman Stockholder:
          I am pleased to inform you that on      , 20     , the board of directors of Northrop Grumman Corporation approved the spin-off of New Ships, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Northrop Grumman. Upon completion of the spin-off, Northrop Grumman stockholders will own 100 percent of the outstanding shares of common stock of New Ships. At the time of the spin-off, New Ships will own and operate our shipbuilding business, which has been designing, building, overhauling and repairing a wide variety of ships primarily for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard for over a century. We believe that this separation of New Ships to form a new, independent, publicly traded company is in the best interests of both Northrop Grumman and New Ships.
          The spin-off will be completed by way of a pro rata distribution of New Ships common stock to our stockholders of record as of            on      , 20     , the spin-off record date. Each Northrop Grumman stockholder will receive            shares of New Ships common stock for each share of Northrop Grumman common stock held by such stockholder on the record date. The distribution of these shares will be made in book-entry form, which means that no physical share certificates will be issued. Following the spin-off, stockholders may request that their shares of New Ships common stock be transferred to a brokerage or other account at any time. No fractional shares of New Ships common stock will be issued. If you would otherwise have been entitled to a fractional common share in the distribution, you will receive the net cash proceeds of such fractional share instead.
          The spin-off is subject to certain customary conditions. Stockholder approval of the distribution is not required, nor are you required to take any action to receive your shares of New Ships common stock.
          Immediately following the spin-off, you will own common stock in Northrop Grumman and New Ships. Northrop Grumman’s common stock will continue to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “NOC.” New Ships intends to have its common stock listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “   .”
          We expect the spin-off to be tax-free to the stockholders of Northrop Grumman, except with respect to any cash received in lieu of fractional shares. The spin-off is conditioned on the receipt of a letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service and an opinion of counsel confirming that the spin-off will not result in the recognition, for U.S. Federal income tax purposes, of income, gain or loss to Northrop Grumman or its stockholders, except to the extent of cash received in lieu of fractional shares.
          The enclosed information statement, which is being mailed to all Northrop Grumman stockholders, describes the spin-off in detail and contains important information about New Ships, including its historical consolidated financial statements. We urge you to read this information statement carefully.
          I want to thank you for your continued support of Northrop Grumman. We look forward to your support of New Ships in the future.
Yours sincerely,
Wesley G. Bush
Chief Executive Officer and President
Northrop Grumman

 


Table of Contents

New Ships, Inc.
     , 20
Dear New Ships, Inc. Stockholder:
          It is our pleasure to welcome you as a stockholder of our company, New Ships, Inc. We have been a leader in designing, building, overhauling and repairing a wide variety of ships primarily for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard for over a century.
          As an independent, publicly traded company, we believe we can more effectively focus on our objectives and satisfy the capital needs of our company, and thus bring more value to you as a stockholder than we could as an operating segment of Northrop Grumman Corporation.
          We expect to have New Ships common stock listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “   ” in connection with the distribution of New Ships common stock by Northrop Grumman.
          We invite you to learn more about New Ships and our subsidiaries by reviewing the enclosed information statement. We look forward to our future as an independent, publicly traded company and to your support as a holder of New Ships common stock.
Very truly yours,
C. Michael Petters
President and Chief Executive Officer
New Ships, Inc.

 


Table of Contents

Information contained herein is subject to completion or amendment. A Registration Statement on Form 10 relating to these securities has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
SUBJECT TO COMPLETION, DATED OCTOBER 15, 2010
INFORMATION STATEMENT
NEW SHIPS, INC.
[address]
Common Stock
(par value $1.00 per share)
          This information statement is being sent to you in connection with the separation of New Ships, Inc. from Northrop Grumman Corporation, following which New Ships will be an independent, publicly traded company. As part of the separation, Northrop Grumman will undergo an internal reorganization, after which it will complete the separation by distributing all of the shares of New Ships common stock on a pro rata basis to the holders of Northrop Grumman common stock. We refer to this pro rata distribution as the “distribution” and we refer to the separation, including the internal reorganization and distribution, as the “spin-off.” We expect that the spin-off will be tax-free to Northrop Grumman stockholders for U.S. Federal income tax purposes, except to the extent of cash received in lieu of fractional shares. Each share of Northrop Grumman common stock outstanding as of      , on      , 20   , the record date for the distribution, will entitle the holder thereof to receive            shares of New Ships common stock. The distribution of shares will be made in book-entry form. Northrop Grumman will not distribute any fractional shares of New Ships common stock. Instead, the distribution agent will aggregate fractional shares into whole shares, sell the whole shares in the open market at prevailing market prices and distribute the aggregate net cash proceeds from the sales pro rata to each holder who would otherwise have been entitled to receive a fractional share in the spin-off. The distribution will be effective as of      , Eastern time, on      , 20   . Immediately after the distribution becomes effective, we will be an independent, publicly traded company.
          No vote or further action of Northrop Grumman stockholders is required in connection with the spin-off. We are not asking you for a proxy. Northrop Grumman stockholders will not be required to pay any consideration for the shares of New Ships common stock they receive in the spin-off, and they will not be required to surrender or exchange shares of their Northrop Grumman common stock or take any other action in connection with the spin-off.
          All of the outstanding shares of New Ships common stock are currently owned by Northrop Grumman. Accordingly, there is no current trading market for New Ships common stock. We expect, however, that a limited trading market for New Ships common stock, commonly known as a “when-issued” trading market, will develop at least two trading days prior to the record date for the distribution, and we expect “regular-way” trading of New Ships common stock will begin the first trading day after the distribution date. We intend to list New Ships common stock on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “   .”
          In reviewing this information statement, you should carefully consider the matters described in “Risk Factors” beginning on page 21 of this information statement.
          Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved these securities or determined if this information statement is truthful or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.
          This information statement is not an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities.
The date of this information statement is      , 20     .

 


 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
         
    Page  
       
    1  
    17  
    21  
    40  
    41  
    49  
    51  
    52  
    53  
    54  
    59  
    77  
    97  
    100  
    125  
    128  
    130  
    132  
    137  
    F-1  

i


Table of Contents

SUMMARY
          This summary highlights information contained in this information statement and provides an overview of our company, our separation from Northrop Grumman and the distribution of New Ships common stock by Northrop Grumman to its stockholders. For a more complete understanding of our business and the spin-off, you should read the entire information statement carefully, particularly the discussion set forth under “Risk Factors” beginning on page 21 of this information statement, and our audited and unaudited historical consolidated financial statements, our unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial statements and the respective notes to those statements appearing elsewhere in this information statement.
          Except as otherwise indicated or unless the context otherwise requires, “New Ships,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to New Ships, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries. After completion of the spin-off, New Ships, Inc. will change its name to      . Except as otherwise indicated or unless the context otherwise requires, the information included in this information statement assumes the completion of the internal reorganization preceding the distribution, as described herein.
          For convenience, brief descriptions of certain programs discussed in this information statement are included in the “Glossary of Programs” beginning on page 17.
          Unless otherwise indicated, references in this information statement to fiscal years are to New Ships’ fiscal years ended December 31.
Our Company
          For more than a century, we have been designing, building, overhauling and repairing a wide variety of ships primarily for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard. We are the nation’s sole industrial designer, builder and refueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the sole supplier and builder of amphibious assault and expeditionary warfare ships to the U.S. Navy, the sole builder of National Security Cutters for the U.S. Coast Guard, one of only two companies currently capable of designing and building nuclear-powered submarines for the U.S. Navy and one of only two companies that builds the U.S. Navy’s current fleet of DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. We build more ships, in more ship types and classes, than any other U.S. naval shipbuilder. We are also one of the nation’s leading full-service systems providers for the design, engineering, construction and life cycle support of major programs for the surface ships of, and a leading non-governmental provider of fleet support and maintenance services for, the U.S. Navy. With broad product capabilities, technologically advanced facilities and an experienced workforce of shipbuilders, we believe we are poised to continue to support the long-term objectives of the U.S. Navy to adapt and respond to a complex, uncertain and rapidly changing national security environment.
          Our primary areas of business include the design, construction, repair and maintenance of nuclear-powered ships, such as aircraft carriers and submarines, and non-nuclear ships, such as surface combatants, expeditionary warfare/amphibious assault and coastal defense surface ships, as well as the overhaul and refueling of nuclear-powered ships.
          The credit quality of our primary customer (the U.S. Government), the long life cycle of our products, our significant contracted backlog, our state-of-the-art facilities and the alignment of our products to the U.S. Navy’s 30-Year Plan (the “30-Year Plan”) assist us in forecasting our near- and long-term business plans that we believe provide us with a measure of financial stability and predictability.
          Our three major shipyards are currently located in Newport News, Virginia, Pascagoula, Mississippi and Avondale, Louisiana.
          We manage our business in two segments: Newport News, which includes all of our nuclear ship design, construction, overhaul and refueling businesses; and Gulf Coast, which includes our non-nuclear ship design, construction, repair and maintenance businesses.
               Newport News
          Through our Newport News shipyard, we are the sole supplier of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to the U.S. Navy. We delivered the last of the ten-ship CVN-68 Nimitz-class, CVN-77 USS George H.W. Bush, on May 11, 2009. In 2008, we were awarded a $5.1 billion contract for the detail design and construction of the first ship of the CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford-class, the next generation of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, which is scheduled for delivery in 2015. In 2009, we were also awarded construction preparation contracts totaling $451 million for the second CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, CVN-79 (unnamed). The duration of this initial CVN-79 award is two years plus a one-year option. The 30-Year Plan includes the award of a new aircraft carrier construction contract every five years.
          Through a unique teaming agreement with General Dynamics Electric Boat (“Electric Boat”) that provides for approximate equality of work allocated between the parties, with Electric Boat as prime contractor and us as a principal subcontractor, we provide SSN-774 Virginia-class nuclear fast attack submarines. SSN-774 Virginia-class submarine

1


Table of Contents

construction contracts have been awarded to the NGSB and Electric Boat team in blocks. Block I was awarded in 1998 and consisted of four submarines, Block II was awarded in 2003 and consisted of six submarines, and Block III was awarded in 2008 and consisted of eight submarines. We and Electric Boat have delivered the first seven submarines of the class (all four submarines from Block I and three submarines from Block II), have another five submarines under construction (the remaining three submarines of Block II and the first two submarines of Block III) and have been contracted to deliver an additional six submarines (the remaining six submarines of Block III). Based on expected build rates, the last Block III SSN-774 Virginia-class submarine is scheduled for delivery in 2018. We are also investing in our facilities to support the increase in production rate from one to two SSN-774 Virginia-class submarines per year beginning in 2011. Additionally, we have begun working with Electric Boat on the initial design phase for the SSBN(X) Ohio-class Submarine Replacement Program. We also have a robust submarine engineering department that provides planning yard services to the U.S. Navy for its other two classes of nuclear-powered submarines, the Los Angeles-class and the Seawolf-class.
          We are the exclusive provider of RCOH (Refueling and Complex Overhaul) services for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and a leading non-governmental provider of fleet maintenance services to the U.S. Navy. In 2009, we were awarded a contract for up to $2.2 billion for the RCOH of CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt, which is scheduled for redelivery to the U.S. Navy in 2013. In 2010, we were also awarded a three-year $678 million planning contract (an initial award of $79 million with two one-year options) for the RCOH of CVN-72 USS Abraham Lincoln. RCOH execution contracts are awarded approximately every four years. Additionally, we are currently building a facility at our Newport News shipyard for the inactivation of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the contract for the first of which, CVN-65 USS Enterprise, is expected to be awarded in 2013.
          We leverage our nuclear capabilities in non-shipbuilding programs as well. For example, we are working with our joint venture partner, AREVA NP, to prepare for the manufacture of heavy components to support civilian nuclear power plant construction work. We are also working with several other joint venture partners for the U.S. Department of Energy (the “DoE”) on environmental management and operations projects at the Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina, and potentially at the Idaho National Laboratory, near Idaho Falls, Idaho. We believe these programs allow us to utilize our unique nuclear expertise to take advantage of opportunities to provide niche services in our areas of core competencies.
          The table below sets forth the primary product lines in our Newport News segment:
                             
 
Newport News Programs
 
 
 
   
Program
Name
   
Program
Description
   
Contract
Overview
   
Funding
Overview
 
 

(IMAGE)
   
Carrier New Construction
CVN-78 Gerald R.
Ford
-class
   
     New aircraft carrier for the 21st century

     Increased warfighting capabilities

     New propulsion plant

     Reduced ship manning

     Focused on operating cost reduction

     Designed for modular construction
   
     Cost plus incentive fee

     Sole source

     Incentivized capital investment under the planning contract

     8-year design, 7.5-year construction
   
     New construction contract expected to be awarded approximately every 5 years
 
 

(IMAGE)
   
Carrier RCOH
   
     Complex overhaul of the ship’s machinery and equipment

     Refueling of both of the ship’s reactors

   
     Cost plus incentive fee

     Sole source

     3-year advanced planning

     Approximately 3.5-year

   
     RCOH execution contracts expected to be awarded approximately every 4 years
 
 
2


Table of Contents

                             
 
 
         
     Significant renovation and modernization work
   
       overhaul execution
       
 
(IMAGE)
   
Submarine New Construction SSN-774 Virginia-class and Fleet Support
   
     Post-Cold War design focused on maneuverability, stealth, warfighting capability and affordability

     Designed for modular construction

     Constructed under a teaming agreement with Electric Boat

     Planning yard services for Los Angeles-class and Seawolf-class
   
     Fixed price incentive

     Sole source to joint production arrangement

     Incentivized capital investment

     Multi-ship buys

     5-year construction
   
     Rate increasing from 1 to 2 annually in 2011

     7 delivered, 11 additional in program backlog

     Block IV expected to include 9 submarines with anticipated award at the end of 2013
 
 
          The table below sets forth the potential future programs in our Newport News segment:
                 
 
Newport News Potential Future Programs
 
 
 
   
Program
Name
   

Program Description
 
 
(IMAGE)
   
Carrier Inactivation
   
     CVN-65 inactivation expected to begin in 2013

     End-of-life nuclear reactor defueling

     Inactivation of ship systems, equipment and machinery

     4-year execution

     Contracts for Nimitz-class carriers expected to be awarded approximately every 4 years beginning in 2023
 
 
(IMAGE)
   
Ohio-class Replacement Program
   
     Anticipated to begin in 2019

     30-Year Plan includes 12 SSBN(X) submarines

     NGSB currently acting as subcontractor in design of SSBN(X)
 
 
(IMAGE)
   
Energy
   
     AREVA Newport News: Manufacturing heavy reactor components

     DoE: Site management and operations

     Newport News Industrial
 
 
               Gulf Coast
          Our Gulf Coast shipyards design and construct surface combatant and amphibious assault/expeditionary warfare ships for the U.S. Navy and coastal defense surface ships for the U.S. Coast Guard. We are the sole supplier and builder of

3


Table of Contents

amphibious assault/expeditionary warfare ships (LHA, LHD and LPD) to the U.S. Navy. We are currently constructing four LPD-17 San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships: LPD-22 San Diego (scheduled for delivery in 2011) and LPD-24 Arlington (scheduled for delivery in 2011) in our Pascagoula, Mississippi shipyard, and LPD-23 Anchorage (scheduled for delivery in 2012) and LPD-25 Somerset (scheduled for delivery in 2012) in our Avondale shipyard. Long-lead procurement is currently underway for LPD-26. As we complete work on LPD-23 Anchorage and LPD-25 Somerset, we intend to wind down our construction activities at Avondale, our Louisiana shipyard, and two Louisiana components facilities and consolidate all Gulf Coast construction into our Mississippi facilities. We believe that consolidation in Pascagoula would allow us to realize the benefits of serial production, reduce program costs on existing contracts and make future vessels more affordable, thereby reducing overhead rates and realizing cost savings for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard. We are also exploring the potential for alternative uses of the Avondale facility by new owners, including alternative opportunities for the workforce there. We expect that process to take some time.
          In 2009, construction of the LHD-1 Wasp-class amphibious assault ships was concluded with the delivery of LHD-8 USS Makin Island, and the first ship of the follow-on class of large-deck amphibious assault ships, LHA-6 America, is currently under construction and we expect to deliver it in 2013. Long-lead procurement is currently underway for LHA-7.
          We are one of only two companies that build the U.S. Navy’s current fleet of DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, a program for which the U.S. Navy recently decided to restart production. In July 2010, we delivered the DDG-107 Gravely to the U.S. Navy, and, at present, we are completing work on DDG-110 William P. Lawrence (scheduled for delivery in December 2010). Long-lead procurement is currently underway for DDG-113.
          We are also constructing the composite superstructure of DDG-1000 Zumwalt and DDG-1001 Michael Monsoor.
          For the U.S. Coast Guard, we are currently constructing NSC-3 Stratton (scheduled for delivery in 2011) for the National Security Cutter program, providing advanced and operationally efficient deepwater capabilities for the U.S. Coast Guard. Long lead procurement is underway for NSC-4 Hamilton.
          Additionally, we provide fleet maintenance and modernization services to the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard fleets. On any given day, over 600 employees of our wholly owned subsidiary AMSEC LLC (“AMSEC”) are on board U.S. Navy ships, assessing equipment conditions, modernizing systems and training sailors. Through our wholly owned subsidiary, Continental Maritime of San Diego, Inc. (“CMSD”), a Master Ship Repair Contractor, we provide ship repair, regular overhaul and selected restricted availability services (pierside or in customer’s drydocks) for the U.S. Navy. We also perform emergent repair for the U.S. Navy on all classes of ships.
          In 2009, our Gulf Coast shipyards began implementation of a new management approach, the Gulf Coast Operating System, focused on better organizing and managing the construction of the ships we build. Through the Gulf Coast Operating System, we believe program managers will be better able to confirm that a ship is adhering to our newly developed standardized performance metrics, and to assure that we are providing high quality products in a safe, timely and cost-effective manner.

4


Table of Contents

          The table below sets forth the primary product lines in our Gulf Coast segment:
                             
     
  Gulf Coast Programs  
       
Program
   
Program
   
Contract
   
Funding
 
        Name     Description     Overview     Overview  
                             
 

(IMAGE)
   
DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer
   
     Most advanced state-of-the-art surface combatant in the fleet
     62-Ship Program/28 awarded to us
   
     Fixed price incentive
     4-year construction
   
     32 additional DDG-51s/Future Surface Combatants expected for procurement by 2031
     Long lead time and material contract awarded for DDG-113

 
                             
 

(IMAGE)
   
LPD-17 San Antonio-class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship
   
     Transport and land 700 to 800 Marines, their equipment and supplies
     Supports amphibious assault, special operations
   
     Fixed price incentive
     4.5-year construction
   
     5 delivered (LPD 17–21), 4 under construction (LPD 22–25)
     Long lead time and material contract awarded for LPD-26

 
                             
 

(IMAGE)
   
LHA-6 America-class Next Generation Amphibious Ship for Joint Operations
   
     Navy’s largest warfare ship for joint operations
     Gas turbines
     All electric auxiliaries
   
     Fixed price incentive
     5-year construction
   
     LHA-6 under construction
     Long lead time and material contract awarded for LHA-7
 
                             
 

(IMAGE)
   
National Security Cutter (Legend Class)
   
     Largest/most capable of the U.S. Coast Guard’s new multi-mission cutters
     Twin-screw propulsion
     Two hangars/large flight deck
   
     Cost plus incentive fee (NSC 1–3)
     3-year construction
   
     Plan for a total of 8 ships
     2 delivered (NSC-1, 2), 1 under construction (NSC-3)
     Long lead time and material contract awarded for NSC-4

 
                             

5


Table of Contents

          The table below sets forth a potential future program in our Gulf Coast segment:
                 
 
Gulf Coast Potential Future Program
             
 
 
   
Program
Name
   

Program Description
 
 
(IMAGE)
   
LSD(X) Amphibious Dock Landing Ship
   
     Expected to begin in 2017

     30-Year Plan calls for 12 LSD(X) ships (one every other year)

     4-year construction
 
 
Competitive Strengths
          We believe that we have the following key competitive strengths:
    we have long-term contracts with visible revenue streams and highly probable backlog based on the U.S. Navy’s 30-Year Plan that provide us with financial predictability and stability;
 
    we generate a significant amount of our revenue from sole source contracts;
 
    we are a leader in the shipbuilding industry;
 
    we have unique facilities and broad manufacturing capabilities;
 
    we have an experienced management team; and
 
    we have a highly trained, dedicated and qualified workforce.
Our Strategy
          Our objectives are to maintain our leadership position in the U.S. naval shipbuilding industry and to deliver long-term value to our stockholders. To achieve these objectives, we utilize the following strategies:
    strengthen and protect market position:
  o   align our business to support the U.S. Navy’s 30-Year Plan;
 
  o   ensure capabilities that support new U.S. Navy requirements; and
 
  o   streamline our operations and footprint to deliver more affordable ships.
    execute well on all contracts:
  o   improve performance in our Gulf Coast operations;
 
  o   capture the benefits of serial production; and
 
  o   deliver quality products on contract targets.
Other Information
          New Ships, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware on August 4, 2010. Our principal executive offices are located at . Our telephone number is (  )   -   . Our website address is www.           .com. Information contained on, or connected to, our website or Northrop Grumman’s website does not and will not constitute part of this information statement or the registration statement on Form 10 of which this information statement is part.
The Spin-Off
Overview
          On      , 20     , Northrop Grumman approved the spin-off of New Ships from Northrop Grumman, following which New Ships will be an independent, publicly traded company.
          Before our spin-off from Northrop Grumman, we will enter into a Separation and Distribution Agreement and several other agreements with Northrop Grumman related to the spin-off. These agreements will govern the relationship between us and Northrop Grumman after completion of the spin-off and provide for the allocation between us and Northrop Grumman of various assets, liabilities and obligations (including employee benefits, intellectual property, information

6


Table of Contents

technology, insurance and tax-related assets and liabilities). See “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Agreements with Northrop Grumman Related to the Spin-Off.”
          The distribution of New Ships common stock as described in this information statement is subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions. In addition, Northrop Grumman has the right not to complete the spin-off if, at any time prior to the distribution, the board of directors of Northrop Grumman determines, in its sole discretion, that the spin-off is not in the best interests of Northrop Grumman or its stockholders, or that market conditions are such that it is not advisable to separate New Ships from Northrop Grumman. See “The Spin-Off—Conditions to the Spin-Off.”
Questions and Answers About the Spin-Off
          The following provides only a summary of the terms of the spin-off. For a more detailed description of the matters described below, see “The Spin-Off.”
     
Q:
  What is the spin-off?
 
   
A:
  The spin-off is the series of transactions by which New Ships will separate from Northrop Grumman. To complete the spin-off, Northrop Grumman will distribute to its stockholders all of the shares of New Ships common stock. We refer to this as the distribution. Following the spin-off, New Ships will be a separate company from Northrop Grumman, and Northrop Grumman will not retain any ownership interest in New Ships. The number of shares of Northrop Grumman common stock you own will not change as a result of the spin-off.
 
   
Q:
  What will I receive in the spin-off?
 
   
A:
  As a holder of Northrop Grumman stock, you will retain your Northrop Grumman shares and will receive            shares of New Ships common stock for each share of Northrop Grumman common stock you own as of the record date. Your proportionate interest in Northrop Grumman will not change as a result of the spin-off. For a more detailed description, see “The Spin-Off.”
 
   
Q:
  What is New Ships?
 
   
A:
  New Ships is currently an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Northrop Grumman whose shares will be distributed to Northrop Grumman stockholders if the spin-off is completed. After the spin-off is completed, New Ships will be a public company and will own all of the shipbuilding business of Northrop Grumman. That business is referred to as the “shipbuilding business” throughout this information statement.
 
   
Q:
  Why is the separation of New Ships structured as a spin-off?
 
   
A:
  Northrop Grumman believes that a tax-free distribution of New Ships common stock is an efficient way to separate New Ships from Northrop Grumman in a manner that will improve flexibility, benefit both Northrop Grumman and the shipbuilding business and create long-term value for stockholders of both Northrop Grumman and New Ships.
 
   
Q:
  What is being distributed in the spin-off?
 
   
A:
  Approximately            shares of New Ships common stock will be distributed in the spin-off, based on the number of shares of Northrop Grumman common stock expected to be outstanding as of the record date. The actual number of shares of New Ships common stock to be distributed will be calculated on   , 20   , the record date. The shares of New Ships common stock to be distributed by Northrop Grumman will constitute all of the issued and outstanding shares of New Ships common stock immediately prior to the distribution. For more information on the shares being distributed in the spin-off, see “Description of Our Capital Stock—Common Stock.”
 
   
Q:
  How will options and stock held by New Ships employees be affected as a result of the spin-off?
 
   
A:
  At the time of the distribution, the exercise price of and number of shares subject to any outstanding option to purchase Northrop Grumman stock, as well as the number of shares subject to any restricted stock right or other Northrop Grumman equity award, held by New Ships’ current and former employees on the distribution date will be adjusted to reflect the value of the distribution such that the intrinsic value of such awards at the time of separation is held constant. In addition, existing performance criteria applicable to such awards will be modified appropriately to reflect the spinoff.
 
 
  Additionally, New Ships’ current and former employees who hold shares of Northrop Grumman common stock in their applicable 401(k) Plan account as of the record date for the distribution will, like all stockholders, receive shares of New Ships common stock in the distribution. On the distribution date, shares of New Ships common stock, based on the distribution ratio for each share of Northrop Grumman common stock held in such employee’s Northrop Grumman stock fund account, will be included in a New Ships stock fund account under the New Ships 401(k) Plan. However, in conformity with the fiduciary responsibility requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), remaining shares of the Northrop Grumman common stock held in New Ships’ employees’ Northrop Grumman stock fund accounts following the distribution will be disposed of and allocated to another investment alternative available under the New Ships 401(k) Plan when directed by participants, and any such shares

7


Table of Contents

     
 
  remaining as of     , 20     [one year from the distribution date] will be automatically disposed of and the proceeds invested in another such investment alternative (but this will not prohibit diversified, collectively managed investment alternatives available under the New Ships 401(k) Plan from holding Northrop Grumman common stock or prohibit employees who use self-directed accounts in the New Ships 401(k) Plan from investing their accounts in Northrop Grumman common stock). In addition, current and former Northrop Grumman employees who hold Northrop Grumman stock under the Northrop Grumman stock fund in their Northrop Grumman 401(k) Plan account as of the record date for the distribution will, like all stockholders, receive shares of New Ships common stock in the distribution, based on the distribution ratio, for each share of Northrop Grumman common stock held in the employee’s Northrop Grumman stock fund account. New Ships shares will be included in a new, temporary New Ships stock fund under the Northrop Grumman 401(k) Plan. In conformity with the fiduciary responsibility requirements of ERISA, remaining shares of New Ships common stock held in the temporary New Ships stock fund following the distribution will be disposed of and allocated to another investment alternative available under the Northrop Grumman 401(k) Plan when directed by participants, and any such shares remaining as of , 20   [one year from the distribution date] will be automatically disposed of and the proceeds invested in another such investment alternative (but this will not prohibit diversified, collectively managed investment alternatives available under the Northrop Grumman 401(k) Plan from holding New Ships common stock or prohibit employees who use self-directed accounts in the Northrop Grumman 401(k) Plan from investing their accounts in New Ships common stock).
 
   
Q:
  When is the record date for the distribution?
 
   
A:
  The record date will be the close of business of the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) on      , 20   .
 
   
Q:
  When will the distribution occur?
 
   
A:
  The distribution date of the spin-off is      , 20     . New Ships expects that it will take the distribution agent, acting on behalf of Northrop Grumman, up to two weeks after the distribution date to fully distribute the shares of New Ships common stock to Northrop Grumman stockholders. The ability to trade New Ships shares will not be affected during that time.
 
   
Q:
  What do I have to do to participate in the spin-off?
 
   
A:
  You are not required to take any action, although you are urged to read this entire document carefully. No stockholder approval of the distribution is required or sought. You are not being asked for a proxy. No action is required on your part to receive your shares of New Ships common stock. You will neither be required to pay anything for the new shares nor to surrender any shares of Northrop Grumman common stock to participate in the spin-off.
 
   
Q:
  How will fractional shares be treated in the spin-off?
 
   
A:
  Fractional shares of New Ships common stock will not be distributed. Fractional shares of New Ships common stock to which Northrop Grumman stockholders of record would otherwise be entitled will be aggregated and sold in the public market by the distribution agent. The aggregate net cash proceeds of the sales will be distributed ratably to those stockholders who would otherwise have received fractional shares of New Ships common stock. Proceeds from these sales will generally result in a taxable gain or loss to those stockholders. Each stockholder entitled to receive cash proceeds from these shares should consult his, her or its own tax advisor as to such stockholder’s particular circumstances. The tax consequences of the distribution are described in more detail under “The Spin-Off—U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Spin-Off.”
 
   
Q:
  What are the U.S. Federal income tax consequences of the spin-off?
 
   
A:
  The spin-off is conditioned on the receipt by Northrop Grumman of a ruling (“IRS Ruling”) from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), which Northrop Grumman has received, and an opinion from its tax counsel that, for U.S. Federal income tax purposes, the distribution will be tax-free to Northrop Grumman, Northrop Grumman’s stockholders and New Ships under Section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”), except for cash payments made to stockholders in lieu of fractional shares such stockholders would otherwise receive in the distribution. The tax consequences of the distribution are described in more detail under “The Spin-Off—U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Spin-Off.”
 
   
Q:
  Will the New Ships common stock be listed on a stock exchange?
 
   
A:
  Yes. Although there is not currently a public market for New Ships common stock, before completion of the spin-off, New Ships intends to apply to list its common stock on the NYSE under the symbol “   .” It is anticipated that trading of New Ships common stock will commence on a “when-issued” basis at least two trading days prior to the record date. When-issued trading refers to a sale or purchase made conditionally because the security has been authorized but not yet issued. When-issued trades generally settle within four trading days after the distribution date. On the first trading day following the distribution date, any when-issued trading with respect to New Ships common stock will end and “regular-way” trading will begin. “Regular-way” trading refers to trading after a security has been issued and

8


Table of Contents

     
 
  typically involves a transaction that settles on the third full trading day following the date of the transaction. See “Trading Market.”
 
   
Q:
  Will my shares of Northrop Grumman common stock continue to trade?
 
   
A:
  Yes. Northrop Grumman common stock will continue to be listed and trade on the NYSE under the symbol “NOC.”
 
   
Q:
  If I sell, on or before the distribution date, shares of Northrop Grumman common stock that I held on the record date, am I still entitled to receive shares of New Ships common stock distributable with respect to the shares of Northrop Grumman common stock I sold?
 
   
A:
  Beginning on or shortly before the record date and continuing through the distribution date for the spin-off, Northrop Grumman’s common stock will begin to trade in two markets on the NYSE: a “regular-way” market and an “ex-distribution” market. If you are a holder of record of shares of Northrop Grumman common stock as of the record date for the distribution and choose to sell those shares in the regular-way market after the record date for the distribution and before the distribution date, you also will be selling the right to receive the shares of New Ships common stock in connection with the spin-off. However, if you are a holder of record of shares of Northrop Grumman common stock as of the record date for the distribution and choose to sell those shares in the ex-distribution market after the record date for the distribution and before the distribution date, you will still receive the shares of New Ships common stock in the spin-off.
 
   
Q:
  Will the spin-off affect the trading price of my Northrop Grumman stock?
 
   
A:
  Yes, the trading price of shares of Northrop Grumman common stock immediately following the distribution is expected to be lower than immediately prior to the distribution because its trading price will no longer reflect the value of the shipbuilding business. However, we cannot provide you with any assurance as to the price at which the Northrop Grumman shares will trade following the spin-off.
 
   
Q:
  What indebtedness will New Ships have following the spin-off?
 
   
A:
  It is anticipated that, prior to the completion of the spin-off, New Ships will (i) incur debt in an amount estimated at $million from third parties (the “New Ships Debt”), the proceeds of which are expected to be used to fund a cash transfer to the primary operating subsidiary of New NGC, NGSC (the “Contribution”), and for general corporate purposes and (ii) enter into a revolving credit facility with third-party lenders in an amount estimated at $    million (the “New Ships Revolving Credit Facility”). It is anticipated that this New Ships Revolving Credit Facility will be undrawn at the time of this spin-off. Additionally, following the spin-off, we will continue to have indebtedness under one loan agreement and may continue to have indebtedness under another loan agreement, both with the Mississippi Business Finance Corporation (the “MBFC”) in connection with the MBFC’s issuance of economic development revenue bonds and industrial revenue bonds for the benefit of New Ships. Northrop Grumman indebtedness, other than certain guarantees related to New Ships indebtedness, will remain with New NGC. In connection with and prior to the spin-off, NGSB intends to tender for the GO Zone IRBs at par. There may be remaining GO Zone IRBs untendered by holders.
 
   
Q:
  What will the relationship be between Northrop Grumman and New Ships after the spin-off?
 
   
A:
  Following the spin-off, New Ships will be an independent, publicly traded company and Northrop Grumman will have no continuing stock ownership interest in New Ships. New Ships will have entered into a Separation and Distribution Agreement with Northrop Grumman and will enter into several other agreements for the purpose of allocating between New Ships and Northrop Grumman various assets, liabilities and obligations (including employee benefits, intellectual property, insurance and tax-related assets and liabilities). These agreements will also govern New Ships’ relationship with Northrop Grumman following the spin-off and will provide arrangements for employee matters, tax matters, intellectual property matters, insurance matters and some other liabilities and obligations attributable to periods before and, in some cases, after the spin-off. These agreements will also include arrangements with respect to transitional services. The Separation and Distribution Agreement will provide that New Ships will indemnify Northrop Grumman against any and all liabilities arising out of New Ships’ business, and that Northrop Grumman will indemnify New Ships against any and all liabilities arising out of Northrop Grumman’s non-shipbuilding business.
 
   
Q:
  What will New Ships’ dividend policy be after the spin-off?
 
   
A:
  New Ships’ dividend policy has not been determined. New Ships’ dividend policy will be established by the New Ships board of directors based on New Ships’ financial condition, results of operations and capital requirements, as well as applicable law, regulatory constraints, industry practice and other business considerations that New Ships’ board of directors considers relevant. In addition, the terms of the agreements governing New Ships’ new debt or debt that we may incur in the future may limit or prohibit the payments of dividends. For more information, see “Dividend Policy.”
 
   
Q:
  What are the anti-takeover effects of the spin-off?

9


Table of Contents

     
A:
  Some provisions of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of New Ships (the “Restated Certificate of Incorporation”) and the Restated Bylaws of New Ships (the “Restated Bylaws”), Delaware law and possibly the agreements governing New Ships’ new debt, as each will be in effect immediately following the spin-off, may have the effect of making more difficult an acquisition of control of New Ships in a transaction not approved by New Ships’ board of directors. In addition, under tax sharing arrangements, New Ships will agree not to enter into any transaction involving an acquisition (including issuance) of New Ships common stock or any other transaction (or, to the extent New Ships has the right to prohibit it, to permit any such transaction) that could cause the distribution or any of the internal reorganization transactions to be taxable to Northrop Grumman. New Ships will also agree to indemnify Northrop Grumman for any tax resulting from any such transactions. Generally, Northrop Grumman will recognize taxable gain on the distribution if there are one or more acquisitions (including issuances) of New Ships capital stock representing 50 percent or more of New Ships’ then-outstanding stock, measured by vote or value, and the acquisitions are deemed to be part of a plan or series of related transactions that include the distribution. Any such acquisition of New Ships common stock within two years before or after the distribution (with exceptions, including public trading by less-than-5 percent stockholders and certain compensatory stock issuances) generally will be presumed to be part of such a plan unless we can rebut that presumption. As a result, New Ships’ obligations may discourage, delay or prevent a change of control of New Ships.
 
   
Q:
  What are the risks associated with the spin-off?
 
   
A:
  There are a number of risks associated with the spin-off and ownership of New Ships common stock. These risks are discussed under “Risk Factors” beginning on page 21.
 
   
Q:
  Where can I get more information?
 
   
A.
  If you have any questions relating to the mechanics of the distribution, you should contact the distribution agent at:
Phone:
Before the spin-off, if you have any questions relating to the spin-off, you should contact Northrop Grumman at:
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Investor Relations
1840 Century Park East
Los Angeles, California 90067
Phone: (310) 201-1634
Email: investors@ngc.com
www.northropgrumman.com
After the spin-off, if you have any questions relating to New Ships, you should contact New Ships at:
New Ships, Inc.
Investor Relations
Phone:
www.    .com

10


Table of Contents

Transaction Structure
(simplified for illustrative purposes)
       
       
The diagram below shows the current structure of Northrop Grumman:     The diagram below shows the structure of Northrop Grumman after completion of the internal reorganization:
       
(FLOW CHART)     (FLOW CHART)
          The diagram below shows the structure of Northrop Grumman and New Ships immediately after completion of the spin-off:
(FLOW CHART)
    Except as otherwise indicated or unless the context otherwise requires, “New Ships,” “we,” “us” and “our” refers to New Ships, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries, after giving effect to the internal reorganization. After completion of the spin-off, New Ships, Inc. will change its name to       .
 
    “NGSB” refers to Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., which currently operates Northrop Grumman’s shipbuilding business.
 
    “NGSC” refers to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, which operates Northrop Grumman’s non-shipbuilding businesses.
 
    “Current NGC” refers to (a) the current holding company, named Northrop Grumman Corporation, and its consolidated subsidiaries prior to the spin-off and (b) to Titan II Inc. after the spin-off.
 
    “New NGC” refers to New P, Inc., which (a) is currently a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman, and (b) after the internal reorganization, will be renamed “Northrop Grumman Corporation” and will be the holding company that distributes the shares of New Ships to complete the spin-off.
 
    “Northrop Grumman” refers to Current NGC and its consolidated subsidiaries prior to the spin-off or New NGC and its consolidated subsidiaries after the internal reorganization or the spin-off, as applicable.

11


Table of Contents

Summary of the Spin-Off
     
Distributing Company
  Northrop Grumman Corporation, a Delaware corporation. After the distribution, Northrop Grumman will not own any shares of New Ships common stock.
 
   
Distributed Company
  New Ships, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Northrop Grumman. After the spin-off, New Ships will be an independent, publicly traded company.
 
   
Distributed Securities
  All of the shares of New Ships common stock owned by Northrop Grumman which will be 100 percent of New Ships common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the distribution.
 
   
Record Date
  The record date for the distribution is the close of business on   , 20   .
 
   
Distribution Date
  The distribution date is   , 20   .
 
   
Internal Reorganization
  As part of the spin-off, Northrop Grumman will undergo an internal reorganization, which we refer to as the “internal reorganization,” that will, among other things, result in:
 
   
 
 
     New NGC replacing Current NGC as the publicly traded holding company that directly and indirectly owns all of the capital stock of Current NGC and its subsidiaries, including New Ships.
 
   
 
 
     New NGC changing its name to “Northrop Grumman Corporation.”
 
   
 
 
     New Ships becoming the parent company of the Northrop Grumman subsidiaries that currently operate the shipbuilding business.
 
   
 
 
     Current NGC becoming a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of New Ships and being renamed “Titan II Inc.”
 
   
 
  After completion of the spin-off:
 
   
 
 
     New NGC will own and operate the aerospace systems, electronic systems, information systems and technical services businesses.
 
   
 
 
     New Ships will be an independent, publicly traded company, will own and operate the shipbuilding business and will own all of the stock of Current NGC.
 
   
 
  For more information, see the description of this internal reorganization in “The Spin-Off—Manner of Effecting the Spin-Off—Internal Reorganization.”
 
   
Incurrence of Debt
  It is anticipated that, prior to completion of the spin-off, New Ships will (i) incur the New Ships Debt to fund the Contribution and for general corporate purposes and (ii) enter into the New Ships Revolving Credit Facility.
 
   
Distribution Ratio
  Each holder of Northrop Grumman common stock will receive            shares of New Ships common stock for each share of Northrop Grumman common stock held on         , 20   .
 
   
The Distribution
  On the distribution date, Northrop Grumman will release the shares of New Ships common stock to the distribution agent to distribute to Northrop Grumman stockholders. The distribution of shares will be made in book-entry form, which means that no physical share certificates will be issued. It is expected that it will take the distribution agent up to two weeks to electronically issue shares of New Ships common stock to you or to your bank or brokerage firm on your behalf by way of direct registration in book-entry form. Trading of our shares will not be affected during that time. Following the spin-off, stockholders whose shares are held in book-entry form may request that their shares of New Ships common stock be transferred to a brokerage or other account at any time. You will not be required to make any payment, surrender or exchange your shares of Northrop Grumman common stock or take any other action to receive your shares of New Ships common stock.

12


Table of Contents

     
Fractional Shares
  The distribution agent will not distribute any fractional shares of New Ships common stock to Northrop Grumman stockholders. Fractional shares of New Ships common stock to which Northrop Grumman stockholders of record would otherwise be entitled will be aggregated and sold in the public market by the distribution agent. The aggregate net cash proceeds of the sales will be distributed ratably to those stockholders who would otherwise have received fractional shares of New Ships common stock. Proceeds from these sales will generally result in a taxable gain or loss to those stockholders. Each stockholder entitled to receive cash proceeds from these shares should consult his, her or its own tax advisor as to such stockholder’s particular circumstances. The tax consequences of the distribution are described in more detail under “The Spin-Off—U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Spin-Off.”
 
   
Conditions to the Spin-Off
  Completion of the spin-off is subject to the satisfaction or waiver by Northrop Grumman of the following conditions:
 
   
 
 
     the board of directors of Northrop Grumman shall have authorized and approved the spin-off and not withdrawn such authorization and approval, and the New NGC board shall have declared the dividend of the common stock of New Ships to Northrop Grumman stockholders;
 
   
 
 
     the Separation and Distribution Agreement and each ancillary agreement contemplated by the Separation and Distribution Agreement shall have been executed by each party thereto;
 
   
 
 
     the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) shall have declared effective New Ships’ registration statement on Form 10, of which this information statement is a part, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), no stop order suspending the effectiveness of the registration statement shall be in effect, and no proceedings for such purpose shall be pending before or threatened by the SEC;
 
   
 
 
     New Ships common stock shall have been accepted for listing on the NYSE or another national securities exchange approved by Northrop Grumman, subject to official notice of issuance;
 
   
 
 
     the internal reorganization (as described in “The Spin-Off—Background”) shall have been completed;
 
   
 
 
     Northrop Grumman shall have received the IRS Ruling and an opinion of its tax counsel, which shall remain in full force and effect, that the spin-off will not result in recognition, for U.S. Federal income tax purposes, of income, gain or loss to Northrop Grumman, or of income, gain or loss to its stockholders, except to the extent of cash received in lieu of fractional shares;
 
   
 
 
     New Ships shall have (i) received the net proceeds from the New Ships Debt and made the Contribution and (ii) entered into the New Ships Revolving Credit Facility, all on terms and conditions acceptable to Northrop Grumman;
 
   
 
 
     no order, injunction or decree by any governmental authority of competent jurisdiction or other legal restraint or prohibition preventing consummation of the distribution shall be pending, threatened, issued or in effect and no other event outside the control of Northrop Grumman shall have occurred or failed to occur that prevents the consummation of the distribution;
 
   
 
 
     no other events or developments shall have occurred prior to the distribution date that, in the judgment of the board of directors of Northrop Grumman, would result in the spin-off having a material adverse effect on Northrop Grumman or its stockholders;
 
   
 
 
     prior to the distribution date, this information statement shall have been mailed to the holders of Northrop Grumman common stock as of the record

13


Table of Contents

     
 
 
date;
 
 
 
     New Ships’ current directors shall have duly elected the individuals listed as members of its post-distribution board of directors in this information statement, and such individuals shall be the members of New Ships’ board of directors immediately after the distribution;
 
   
 
 
     prior to the distribution, Northrop Grumman shall have delivered to New Ships resignations from those New Ships positions, effective as of immediately after the distribution, of each individual who will be an employee of Northrop Grumman after the distribution and who is an officer or director of New Ships prior to the distribution; and
 
   
 
 
     immediately prior to the distribution date, the Restated Certificate of Incorporation and the Restated Bylaws, each in substantially the form filed as an exhibit to the registration statement on Form 10 of which this information statement is part, shall be in effect.
 
   
 
  The fulfillment of the foregoing conditions will not create any obligation on Northrop Grumman’s part to effect the spin-off. We are not aware of any material federal or state regulatory requirements that must be complied with or any material approvals that must be obtained, other than compliance with SEC rules and regulations and the declaration of effectiveness of the Registration Statement by the SEC, in connection with the distribution. Northrop Grumman has the right not to complete the spin-off if, at any time prior to the distribution, the board of directors of Northrop Grumman determines, in its sole discretion, that the spin-off is not in the best interests of Northrop Grumman or its stockholders or that market conditions are such that it is not advisable to separate New Ships from Northrop Grumman. For more information, see “The Spin-Off—Conditions to the Spin-Off.”
 
   
Trading Market and Symbol
  We intend to file an application to list New Ships common stock on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “   .” We anticipate that, at least two trading days prior to the record date, trading of shares of New Ships common stock will begin on a “when-issued” basis and will continue up to and including the distribution date, and we expect “regular-way” trading of New Ships common stock will begin the first trading day after the distribution date. We also anticipate that, at least two trading days prior to the record date, there will be two markets in Northrop Grumman common stock: a regular-way market on which shares of Northrop Grumman common stock will trade with an entitlement to shares of New Ships common stock to be distributed pursuant to the distribution, and an “ex-distribution” market on which shares of Northrop Grumman common stock will trade without an entitlement to shares of New Ships common stock. For more information, see “Trading Market.”
 
   
Tax Consequences
  As a condition to the spin-off, Northrop Grumman has received an IRS Ruling and will receive an opinion of counsel stating that Northrop Grumman, Northrop Grumman’s stockholders and New Ships will not recognize any taxable income, gain or loss for U.S. Federal income tax purposes as a result of the spin-off, including the internal reorganization, except with respect to any cash received by Northrop Grumman’s stockholders in lieu of fractional shares. For a more detailed description of the U.S. Federal income tax consequences of the spin-off, see “The Spin-Off—U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Spin-Off.”
 
   
 
  Each stockholder is urged to consult his, her or its tax advisor as to the specific tax consequences of the spin-off to such stockholder, including the effect of any state, local or non-U.S. tax laws and of changes in applicable tax laws.

14


Table of Contents

     
Relationship with Northrop Grumman after the Spin-Off
  We will enter into a Separation and Distribution Agreement and other agreements with Northrop Grumman related to the spin-off. These agreements will govern the relationship between us and Northrop Grumman after completion of the spin-off and provide for the allocation between us and Northrop Grumman of various assets, liabilities and obligations (including employee benefits, intellectual property, insurance and tax-related assets and liabilities). The Separation and Distribution Agreement, in particular, will provide for the settlement or extinguishment of certain obligations between us and Northrop Grumman. We will enter into a Transition Services Agreement with Northrop Grumman pursuant to which certain services will be provided on an interim basis following the distribution. We will also enter into an Employee Matters Agreement that will set forth the agreements between Northrop Grumman and us concerning certain employee compensation and benefit matters. Further, we will enter into a Tax Sharing Agreement with Northrop Grumman regarding the sharing of taxes incurred before and after completion of the spin-off, certain indemnification rights with respect to tax matters and certain restrictions to preserve the tax-free status of the spin-off. In addition, to facilitate the ongoing use of various intellectual property by each of us and Northrop Grumman, we intend to enter into an Intellectual Property License Agreement with Northrop Grumman that will provide for certain reciprocal licensing arrangements. We also intend to enter into an Insurance Matters Agreement with Northrop Grumman. We describe these arrangements in greater detail under “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Agreements with Northrop Grumman Related to the Spin-Off,” and describe some of the risks of these arrangements under “Risk Factors—Risks Relating to the Spin-Off.”
 
   
Dividend Policy
  We have not determined New Ships’ dividend policy. New Ships’ dividend policy will be established by the New Ships board of directors based on our financial condition, results of operations and capital requirements, as well as applicable law, regulatory constraints, industry practice and other business considerations that New Ships’ board of directors considers relevant. In addition, the terms of the agreements governing our new debt or debt that we may incur in the future may limit or prohibit the payments of dividends. For more information, see “Dividend Policy.”
 
   
Transfer Agent
   
 
   
Risk Factors
  We face both general and specific risks and uncertainties relating to our business, our relationship with Northrop Grumman and our being an independent, publicly traded company. We also are subject to risks relating to the spin-off. You should carefully read “Risk Factors” beginning on page 21 of this information statement.

15


Table of Contents

Summary Historical and Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Financial Data
          The following table presents the summary historical condensed consolidated financial data for NGSB and New Ships’ unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial data. The consolidated financial data set forth below for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 is derived from NGSB’s audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this information statement. The condensed consolidated financial data for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and June 30, 2009 is derived from NGSB’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements that are included elsewhere in this information statement. The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the same basis as the audited consolidated financial statements and, in the opinion of our management, include all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the information set forth herein.
          The summary unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial data for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and the year ended December 31, 2009 have been prepared to reflect the spin-off, including: (i) the distribution of New Ships common stock by Northrop Grumman to its stockholders; and (ii) the incurrence of $        of the New Ships Debt by New Ships prior to completion of the spin-off and the making of the Contribution. The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated statement of income data presented for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and the year ended December 31, 2009 assumes the spin-off occurred on January 1, 2009, the first day of fiscal year 2009. The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated balance sheet data assumes the spin-off occurred on June 30, 2010. The assumptions used and pro forma adjustments derived from such assumptions are based on currently available information and we believe such assumptions are reasonable under the circumstances.
          The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial statements are not necessarily indicative of our results of operations or financial condition had the distribution and our anticipated post-spin-off capital structure been completed on the dates assumed. Also, they may not reflect the results of operations or financial condition which would have resulted had we been operating as an independent, publicly traded company during such periods. In addition, they are not necessarily indicative of our future results of operations or financial condition.
          You should read this summary financial data together with “Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements,” “Capitalization,” “Selected Historical Consolidated Financial and Other Data,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and NGSB’s consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included in this information statement.
                                                         
    (Six months) ended June 30     (Year ended) December 31  
    Pro Forma                     Pro Forma                    
    2010     2010     2009     2009     2009     2008     2007  
(in millions)                                                        
 
                                                       
Sales and service revenues
    $       $3,322       $2,954       $       $6,292       $6,189       $5,692  
Goodwill impairment
                                      2,490        
Operating income (loss)
            67       64               211       (2,354 )     447  
Net earnings (loss)
            30       29               124       (2,420 )     276  
Total assets
            5,143                       5,001       4,760       7,658  
Long-term debt
            283                       283       283       283  
Total long-term obligations
            1,660                       1,632       1,761       1,790  
Free cash flow(1)
            (82 )     (209 )             (269 )     121       364  
 
                           
 
(1)   Free cash flow is a non-GAAP financial measure and represents cash from operating activities less capital expenditure. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Free Cash Flow” for more information on this measure.

16


Table of Contents

GLOSSARY OF PROGRAMS
          Listed below are brief descriptions of the programs mentioned in this information statement.
           
           
 
 
       
 
Program Name
    Program Description  
           
 
 
       
 
AREVA Newport News
    Participate, as minority owners of a limited liability company formed with AREVA NP, in a joint venture to supply heavy components to the civilian nuclear electrical power sector. The joint venture, AREVA Newport News, LLC, is constructing a production facility adjacent to the Newport News shipyard for the manufacture of heavy commercial nuclear power plant components, which is expected to be completed within the next four years.  
 
 
       
           
 
 
       
 
CVN-65 USS Enterprise
    Maintain and support the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the inactivation of which is expected to start in 2013.  
 
 
       
           
 
 
       
 
CVN-68 Nimitz-class
aircraft carriers
    Refuel, maintain and repair the CVN-68 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, which are the largest warships in the world. Each Nimitz-class carrier is designed for an approximately 50-year service life, with one mid-life refueling. Aircraft carriers are the centerpiece of America’s Naval forces. On any given day, aircraft carriers exercise the U.S. Navy core capabilities of power projection, forward presence, humanitarian assistance, deterrence, sea control and maritime security. The 10th and final Nimitz-class carrier constructed, CVN-77 USS George H.W. Bush, was commissioned in 2009.  
 
 
       
           
 
 
       
 
CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers
    Design and construction for the CVN-21 program, which is the future aircraft carrier replacement program for CVN-65 USS Enterprise and CVN-68 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford (the first ship of the CVN-21 program) is currently under construction and is scheduled to be delivered in 2015. CVN-79 (unnamed) is under contract for engineering, advance construction and purchase of long-lead time components and material. CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford-class carriers are expected to be awarded every five years across the U.S. Navy’s 30-Year Plan. They will be the premier forward asset for crisis response and early decisive striking power in a major combat operation. The class brings improved warfighting capability, quality of life improvements for sailors and reduced acquisition and life cycle costs.  
 
 
       
           
 
 
       
 
DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers
    Build guided missile destroyers designed for conducting anti-air, anti-submarine, anti-surface and strike operations. The Aegis-equipped DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are the U.S. Navy’s primary surface combatant, and have been constructed in variants, allowing technological advances during construction. The U.S. Navy has committed to restarting the DDG-51 program, and truncating construction of the DDG-1000 class of ships. The plan is for a total of 62 ships.  
 
 
       
           
 
 
       
 
DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers
    Design and build next-generation multi-mission surface combatants in conjunction with General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and construct the ships’ integrated composite deckhouses, as well as portions of the ships’ aft peripheral vertical launch systems. Developed under the DD(X) destroyer program, the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer is the lead ship of a class tailored for land attack and littoral dominance with capabilities that defeat current and projected threats and improve battle force defense. In July 2008, the U.S. Navy announced its decision to truncate the DDG-1000 program at three ships and restart the construction of BMD-capable DDG-51s. We are constructing the composite superstructure of DDG-1000 Zumwalt and DDG-1001 Michael Monsoor and have submitted a proposal to construct the DDG-  
           

17


Table of Contents

           
           
 
 
       
 
 
    1002 (unnamed) composite superstructure.  
 
 
       
           
 
 
       
 
DoE
    Participate, as a minority member in two joint ventures, in the management and operation of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (“DoE”) nuclear sites, the Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina, and potentially at the Idaho National Laboratory, near Idaho Falls, Idaho. Our joint venture partners include Fluor Corporation and Honeywell International Inc. at the Savannah River Site, and CH2M Hill in Idaho.  
 
 
       
           
 
 
       
 
Inactivation
    Defuel and inactivate nuclear-powered aircraft carriers for the U.S. Navy. Inactivation of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, of which 11 have been constructed to date, is expected to start in 2013 with CVN-65 USS Enterprise.  
 
 
       
           
 
 
       
 
LHA-6 America-class
amphibious assault ships
    Design and build amphibious assault ships that provide forward presence and power projection as an integral part of joint, interagency and multinational maritime expeditionary forces. The LHA-6 America-class ships, together with the LHD-1 Wasp-class ships, are the successors to the aging LHA-1 Tarawa-class ships. Three of the original five Tarawa-class ships have been recently decommissioned, and the remainder of the class is scheduled to be decommissioned by 2015. The first LHA replacement (LHA(R)) ship, LHA-6 America, was placed under contract with us in June 2007, and is scheduled for delivery in 2013. The LHA-6 America-class ships optimize aviation operations and support capabilities. The key differences between LHA-6 and the LHD-1 Wasp-class ships include an enlarged hangar deck, enhanced aviation maintenance facilities, increased aviation fuel capacity, additional aviation storerooms, removal of the well deck and an electronically reconfigurable command, control, computers, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) suite.  
 
 
       
           
 
 
       
 
LHD-1 Wasp-class
amphibious assault ships
    Build the world’s largest class of amphibious assault ships, the LHD-1 Wasp-class ships, which perform essentially the same mission as the LHA/LHA(R) ships. These ships project power and maintain presence by serving as the cornerstone of the Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG)/Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). A key element of the Seapower 21 pillars of Sea Strike and Sea Basing, these ships transport and land elements of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) with a combination of aircraft and landing craft. The plan is for a total of eight ships, of which LHD-8 USS Makin Island, commissioned in October 2009 and equipped with improved capabilities, is the last.  
 
 
       
           
 
 
       
 
LPD-17 San Antonio-class
    Design and build amphibious transport dock ships, which are warships that embark, transport and land elements of a landing force for a variety of expeditionary warfare missions, and also serve as the secondary aviation platform for Amphibious Readiness Groups. The LPD-17 San Antonio-class is the newest addition to the U.S. Navy’s 21st century amphibious assault force, and these ships are a key element of the U.S. Navy’s seabase transformation. Collectively, these ships functionally replace over 41 ships (LPD-4, LSD-36, LKA-113 and LST-1179 classes of amphibious ships), providing the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps with modern, seabased platforms that are networked, survivable and built to operate with 21st century transformational platforms. The first ship in the class, LPD-17 USS San Antonio was delivered in July 2005. We have delivered LPD-18 through LPD-21 to the U.S. Navy. We are currently constructing LPD-22 through LPD-25 and the U.S. Navy has awarded us the long lead time material contract for LPD-26.  
 
 
       
           
 
 
       
 
NSC-1 Legend-class
National Security Cutter
    Design and build the U.S. Coast Guard’s National Security Cutters, the largest and most technically advanced class of cutter in the Coast Guard. The  
           

18


Table of Contents

           
           
 
 
    first three NSCs were procured through a limited liability company owned by us and Lockheed Martin. NSC-4 and future NSCs are expected to be ordered directly from us. The NSC is equipped to carry out maritime homeland security, maritime safety, protection of natural resources, maritime mobility and national defense missions. The plan is for a total of eight ships of which the first two ships, NSC-1 USCGC Bertholf and NSC-2 USCGC Waesche, have been delivered and NSC-3 Stratton is under construction. Long lead time and material procurement is underway for NSC-4 Hamilton.  
 
 
       
           
 
 
       
 
Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)
    Perform refueling and complex overhaul (RCOH) of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, which is required at the mid-point of their 50-year life cycle. CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt is currently undergoing RCOH, marking the fifth CVN RCOH in history. We have already successfully completed the RCOH process for CVN-65 USS Enterprise, CVN-68 USS Nimitz, CVN-69 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson.  
 
 
       
           
 
 
       
 
SSBN(X) Ohio-class
Submarine Replacement Program
    Act, through an agreement with Electric Boat, as design subcontractor for the Ohio-class replacement boats. The U.S. Navy has committed to designing a replacement class for the aging Ohio-class nuclear ballistic submarines, which were first introduced into service in 1981. The SSBN(X) Ohio-class Submarine Replacement Program represents a significant new program opportunity for us. Electric Boat is expected to lead the program. Although the contract is not yet negotiated, we expect to share in the design effort and our experience and well-qualified workforce position us for a potential role in the construction effort. The Ohio-class includes 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) and four cruise missile submarines (SSGN). The Ohio-class Submarine Replacement Program currently calls for 12 new ballistic missile submarines over a 15-year period for approximately $4 to $7 billion each. The first Ohio-class ballistic submarine is expected to be retired in 2029, meaning that the first replacement platform should be in commission by that time. The U.S. Navy has initiated the design process for this class of submarine, and we have begun design work as a subcontractor to Electric Boat. We expect to receive $1 billion over the next nine years on subcontract work on the SSBN(X) Ohio-class Submarine Replacement Program design. Construction is expected to begin in 2019 with the procurement of long-lead time materials in 2015.  
 
 
       
           
 
 
       
 
SSN-774 Virginia-class fast attack
submarines
    Construct the newest attack submarine as the principal subcontractor to Electric Boat. The SSN-774 Virginia-class is a post-Cold War design tailored to excel in a wide range of warfighting missions, including anti-submarine and surface ship warfare; special operation forces; strike; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; carrier and expeditionary strike group support; and mine warfare. The SSN-774 Virginia-class has several innovations which significantly enhance its warfighting capabilities with an emphasis on littoral operations. Through the extensive use of modular construction, open architecture, and commercial off-the-shelf components, the SSN-774 Virginia-class is designed to remain state-of-the-art for the entire operational life of its submarines through the rapid introduction of new systems and payloads. Through a unique teaming agreement with Electric Boat that provides for approximate equality of work allocated between the parties, we provide SSN-774 Virginia-class nuclear fast attack submarines. SSN-774 Virginia-class submarine construction contracts have been awarded to the NGSB and Electric Boat team in blocks. Block I was awarded in 1998 and consisted of four submarines, Block II was awarded in 2003 and consisted of six submarines, and Block III was awarded in 2008 and consisted of eight submarines. We and Electric Boat have delivered the first seven submarines of the class (all four submarines from Block I and three submarines from Block II), have another five submarines under construction  
           

19


Table of Contents

           
           
 
 
    (the remaining three submarines of Block II and the first two submarines of Block III) and have been contracted to deliver an additional six submarines (the remaining six submarines of Block III). Based on expected build rates, the last Block III SSN-774 Virginia-class submarine is scheduled for delivery in 2018. We are also investing in our facilities to support the increase in production rate from one to two SSN-774 Virginia-class submarines per year beginning in 2011.  
 
 
       
           

20


Table of Contents

RISK FACTORS
          You should carefully consider each of the following risks, which we believe are the principal risks that we face, and all of the other information in this information statement. Some of the risks described below relate to our business, while others relate to the spin-off. Other risks relate principally to the securities markets and ownership of our common stock. Our business may also be adversely affected by risks and uncertainties not known to us or risks that we currently believe to be immaterial.
          Should any of the following risks and uncertainties develop into actual events, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected, the trading price of our common stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment.
Risks Relating to Our Business
          We face the following risks in connection with the general conditions and trends of the industry in which we operate:
We depend heavily on a single customer, the U.S. Government, for substantially all of our business, and changes affecting this customer’s ability to do business with us could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          Our business is primarily dependent upon the design, construction, repair, maintenance, fleet support and life cycle services of nuclear-powered ships, such as aircraft carriers and submarines, and non-nuclear ships, such as surface combatants and expeditionary warfare/amphibious assault ships for the U.S. Navy and coastal defense surface ships for the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as the overhaul and refueling of nuclear-powered ships for the U.S. Navy. Approximately 99 percent of our revenues during 2009 were derived from products and services ultimately sold to the U.S. Government. In addition, more than 99 percent of our backlog was U.S. Government-related as of December 31, 2009. We are a supplier, either directly or as a subcontractor or team member, to the U.S. Government and its agencies. These contracts are subject to our customers’ political and budgetary constraints and processes, changes in customers’ short-range and long-range strategic plans, the timing of contract awards, significant changes in contract scheduling, intense contract and funding competition, difficulty in forecasting costs and schedules when bidding on developmental and highly sophisticated technical work, and delays in the timing of contract approval, as well as other risks such as contractor suspension or debarment in the event of certain violations of legal or regulatory requirements.
Contracts with the U.S. Government are subject to uncertain levels of funding, modification due to changes in customer priorities and potential termination.
          We are directly dependent upon allocation of defense monies to the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard. The funding of U.S. Government programs is subject to congressional budget authorization and appropriation processes. For certain programs, Congress appropriates funds on a fiscal year basis even though a program may extend over several fiscal years. Consequently, programs are occasionally only partially funded initially and additional funds are committed only as Congress makes further appropriations. We cannot predict the extent to which total funding and/or funding for individual programs will be included, increased or reduced as part of the 2011 and subsequent budgets ultimately approved by Congress or will be included in the scope of separate supplemental appropriations. The impact, severity and duration of the current U.S. economic situation, the sweeping economic plans adopted by the U.S. Government, and pressures on the federal budget could also adversely affect the total funding and/or funding for individual programs. In the event that appropriations for any of our programs becomes unavailable, or is reduced or delayed, our contract or subcontract under such program may be terminated or adjusted by the U.S. Government, which could have a material adverse effect on our future sales under such program, and on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          We also cannot predict the impact of potential changes in priorities due to military transformation and planning and/or the nature of war-related activity on existing, follow-on or replacement programs. A shift of government priorities to programs in which we do not participate and/or reductions in funding for or the termination of programs in which we do participate, unless offset by other programs and opportunities, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          In addition, the U.S. Government generally has the ability to terminate contracts, in whole or in part, with little to no prior notice, for convenience or for default based on performance. In the event of termination for the U.S. Government’s convenience, contractors are normally protected by provisions covering reimbursement for costs incurred on the contracts and profit related to those costs but not the anticipated profit that would have been earned had the contract been completed. However, such a termination could result in the cancelation of future work on that program. Termination resulting from our default can expose us to liability and have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and our ability to compete for contracts.

21


Table of Contents

Contract cost growth on fixed price and other contracts that cannot be justified as an increase in contract value due from customers exposes us to reduced profitability and the potential loss of future business.
          Our operating income is adversely affected when we incur certain contract costs or certain increases in contract costs that cannot be billed to customers. This cost growth can occur if estimates to complete increase due to technical challenges, manufacturing difficulties or delays, or workforce-related issues, or if initial estimates used for calculating the contract cost were inaccurate. The cost estimation process requires significant judgment and expertise. Reasons for cost growth may include unavailability or reduced productivity of labor, the nature and complexity of the work to be performed, the timelines and availability of materials, major subcontractor performance and quality of their products, the effect of any delays in performance, availability and timing of funding from the customer, natural disasters and the inability to recover any claims included in the estimates to complete. For example, lack of progress in LHD-8 on-board testing preparatory to sea trials prompted us to undertake a comprehensive review of the program, including a detailed physical audit of the ship, resulting in a pre-tax charge of $272 million in the first quarter of 2008 for anticipated cost growth related to the identified need for substantial re-work on the ship. In addition to the LHD-8 charge, an additional $54 million of charges was recognized in the first quarter of 2008, primarily for schedule impacts on other ships and impairment of purchased intangibles at the Gulf Coast shipyards. Subsequent to recognizing the LHD-8 charge, we completed our performance under the contract at costs that were lower than the amounts previously anticipated primarily due to efficiencies from improved operating practices, risk retirement and increased escalation recovery. As a result, $63 million of the loss provision was reversed in 2008, and an additional $54 million was reversed in 2009 upon delivery of the ship. In addition, shortly after Hurricane Katrina, we entered into a fixed price incentive contract for LPD-22 through LPD-25, which, in hindsight, reflected aggressive cost targets that did not fully account for the extent of Katrina disruption on the Gulf Coast shipyards and workforce, resulting in estimated costs today that are greater than were included in our bid. Therefore, construction under the LPD-22 through LPD-25 contract has been adversely impacted by operating performance factors, resulting in unfavorable cost growth that led to pre-tax charges totaling $171 million in 2009. A significant change in cost estimates on one or more programs could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          Our principal U.S. Government business is currently being performed under firm fixed price (“FFP”), fixed price incentive (“FPI”), cost plus incentive fee (“CPIF”) and cost plus fixed fee (“CPFF”) contracts. The risk to us of not being reimbursed for our costs varies with the type of contract. Under FFP contracts, we retain all costs savings on completed contracts but are liable for the full amount of all expenditures in excess of the contract price. FPI contracts, on the other hand, are flexibly priced arrangements under which overruns and underruns to an agreed-upon target cost are shared between the U.S. Government and us. Our profit is increased or decreased according to a formula set forth in the contract, which generally compares the amount of costs incurred to the contract target cost. The U.S. Government is liable for its share of all allowable costs up to a ceiling price. However, we are responsible for all costs incurred in excess of such ceiling price, which is typically 125–135 percent of target cost. In addition, our FPI contracts, if long-term, generally provide for the U.S. Government to pay escalation based on published indices relating to the shipbuilding industry. Under both CPIF and CPFF contracts, we are generally only required to perform the contract to the extent the U.S. Government makes funds available, and we recover all allowable costs incurred in the performance of the contract. Under CPIF contracts, our profit is determined by a contractually specified formula that essentially compares allowable incurred costs to the contract target cost. In some instances, the contract fee may be affected by a maximum or minimum fee percentage set for the contract. Under CPFF contracts, the fee is the same without regard to the amount of cost incurred. In 2009, approximately 60 percent of Newport News’ revenues were cost plus incentive fee, which primarily included aircraft carrier construction and RCOH. Twenty-nine percent of Newport News’ 2009 revenues were fixed price incentive contracts, mainly consisting of submarine construction, while 10 percent of revenues were cost plus fixed fee contracts. Approximately 67 percent of the Gulf Coast’s revenues were fixed price incentive, 27 percent were cost plus incentive fee and 4 percent were firm fixed price.
Our earnings and margins depend, in part, on our ability to perform under contracts and on subcontractor performance as well as raw material and component availability and pricing.
          When agreeing to contractual terms, we make assumptions and projections about future conditions and events, many of which extend over long periods. These projections assess the productivity and availability of labor, the complexity of the work to be performed, the cost and availability of materials, the impact of delayed performance and the timing of product deliveries. We cannot guarantee that there will not be significant variances from our assumptions, delays in our performance and the timing of our product deliveries. If there is a significant change in one or more of these circumstances or estimates, or if we face unanticipated contract costs, the profitability of one or more of these contracts may be adversely affected.
          We also rely on other companies to provide raw materials and major components for our products and rely on subcontractors to produce hardware elements and sub-assemblies and perform some of the services that we provide to our customers. Disruptions or performance problems caused by our subcontractors and vendors could have an adverse effect on our ability to meet our commitments to customers. Our ability to perform our obligations as a prime contractor could be

22


Table of Contents

adversely affected if one or more of the vendors or subcontractors are unable to provide the agreed-upon products or materials or perform the agreed-upon services in a timely and cost-effective manner.
          All major materials, parts and components for our products are currently available in adequate supply from domestic and/or foreign sources. Through the cost escalation provisions contained in some of our U.S. Government contracts, we may be protected from increases in material costs to the extent that the increases in our costs are in line with industry indices. However, the difference in basis between our actual material costs and these indices may expose us to cost uncertainty even with these provisions. The most significant raw material we require is steel. A significant delay in supply deliveries of our key raw materials required in our production processes could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          In connection with our government contracts, we are required to procure certain materials and component parts from supply sources approved by the U.S. Government. We have not generally been dependent upon any single-supply source; however, due largely to the consolidation of the defense industry, there are currently several components for which there is only one supplier. The inability of a sole source supplier to meet our needs could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Our results of operations depend on the award of new contracts.
          The prospects of U.S. shipyards, including ours, can be materially affected by their success in securing significant U.S. Navy contract awards. In February 2010, the Department of Defense (the “DoD”) issued its Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review (the “QDR”), a legislatively mandated review of military strategy and priorities that shapes defense funding over the ensuing four years. The QDR emphasized the related challenge of rebuilding readiness at a time when the DoD is also pursuing growth, modernization and transformation of its forces and capabilities, reiterated the need for preparedness across the range of military operations, and prioritized continued investment in warfighting capabilities. The U.S. Navy relies on the force requirements set forth in the QDR to design its 30-Year Plan. The QDR report describes some of the tradeoffs that the DoD’s leaders have identified to enable the rebalancing of U.S. military capabilities. The President’s 2011 budget request proposes reductions to certain lower-priority programs, including some in which we participate or for which we expect to compete, so that more pressing needs can be addressed, both within that budget and those of subsequent years. We believe that our shipbuilding programs are a high priority for national defense, but under budgetary pressures, one or more of our programs may be reduced, extended or terminated by our U.S. Government customers. Specific actions already taken that could negatively affect us include the deferral of production of new maritime prepositioning ships, the reduction in the number of planned large surface combatants and the increase of the procurement interval for aircraft carriers to five years.
          In February 2010, the U.S. Navy released its 30-Year Plan, in which the U.S. Navy used the goals and strategies set forth in the QDR to identify the naval capabilities projected to meet the defense challenges faced by the nation in the next three decades. The 30-Year Plan uses, as a baseline, a 313-ship force that was first proposed by the U.S. Navy to Congress in 2006 to design a battle inventory to provide global reach; persistent presence; and strategic, operational and tactical effects expected of naval forces within reasonable levels of funding. Any significant reduction from the 30-Year Plan could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          Although we believe that, as the only company currently capable of building the U.S. Navy’s nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, we are in a strong competitive position to be awarded any contracts for building new nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, we cannot give any assurances that we will receive any award, that aircraft carrier construction projects will not be delayed or that aircraft carrier construction projects will be funded by Congress. Furthermore, in response to the need for cheaper alternatives and the proliferation of “smart weapons,” it is possible that future strategy reassessments by the DoD may result in a decreased need for aircraft carriers. We are currently performing design engineering and advanced construction and procuring long lead time materials for the next generation of aircraft carriers. For the year ended December 31, 2009 and for the first six months of 2010, aircraft carrier construction accounted for approximately 10 and 11 percent of our consolidated revenues, respectively. Aircraft carrier programs and other government projects can be delayed, and such delays typically cause loss of income during the period of delay and retraining costs when work resumes. Any significant reduction in the level of government appropriations for aircraft carrier or other shipbuilding programs, or a significant delay of such appropriations, would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          Through a unique teaming agreement with Electric Boat that provides for approximate equality of work allocated between the parties, with Electric Boat as prime contractor and us as a principal subcontractor, we provide SSN-774 Virginia-class nuclear fast attack submarines. SSN-774 Virginia-class submarine construction contracts have been awarded to the NGSB and Electric Boat team in blocks. Block I was awarded in 1998 and consisted of four submarines, Block II was awarded in 2003 and consisted of six submarines, and Block III was awarded in 2008 and consisted of eight submarines. We and Electric Boat have delivered the first seven submarines of the class (all four submarines from Block I

23


Table of Contents

and three submarines from Block II), have another five submarines under construction (the remaining three submarines of Block II and the first two submarines of Block III) and have been contracted to deliver an additional six submarines (the remaining six submarines of Block III). Based on expected build rates, the last Block III SSN-774 Virginia-class submarine is scheduled for delivery in 2018. We are also investing in our facilities to support the increase in production rate from one to two SSN-774 Virginia-class submarines per year beginning in 2011. The team has a current backlog of 11 SSN-774 Virginia-class submarines, but there can be no assurance that the SSN-774 Virginia-class submarine program will continue to be funded or proceed on schedule.
          Additionally, the U.S. Navy has initiated the design process for the aging Ohio-class nuclear ballistic submarines, which were first introduced into service in 1981. The SSBN(X) Ohio-class Submarine Replacement Program represents a significant new program opportunity for us. Electric Boat is expected to lead the program. Although the contract is not yet negotiated, we expect to share in the design effort and our experience and well-qualified workforce position us for a potential role in the construction effort. The Ohio-class includes 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) and four cruise missile submarines (SSGN). The Ohio-class Submarine Replacement Program currently calls for 12 new ballistic missile submarines over a 15-year period for approximately $4 to $7 billion each. The first Ohio-class ballistic submarine is expected to be retired in 2029, meaning that the first replacement platform should be in commission by that time. We have begun design work as a subcontractor to Electric Boat. We expect to receive $1 billion over the next nine years on subcontract work on the SSBN(X) Ohio-class Submarine Replacement Program design. Construction is expected to begin in 2019 with the procurement of long-lead time materials in 2015.
          With respect to the federal nuclear market, we are a minority member of a joint venture that manages and operates the Savannah River Site for the DoE in South Carolina. We are also a minority member of a joint venture that was recently awarded the contract to manage and operate DoE’s Advanced Mixed Waste Project in Idaho, and we are preparing to bid (also with others in an alliance) on several DoE site management contracts. Competition for these types of contracts and projects is intense and there can be no assurance that we will continue to receive contracts or be successful with our initiatives in these areas; we do not believe that such an outcome would have a material impact on our business.
          Additionally, the U.S. Navy has stated that it currently expects that LPD-17 San Antonio-class amphibious assault transport dock ships will be a mainstay of the U.S. Navy over the next decade, replacing a number of vessels nearing the end of their useful lives. Our U.S. Gulf Coast shipyards are the sole builders of amphibious assault ships (LHA, LHD and LPD). Despite the U.S. Navy’s stated intention, however, there can be no assurance that the DoD and Congress will fund the 10 or 11 planned LPD-17 San Antonio-class vessels. In light of recent quality issues raised by the U.S. Navy regarding LPD-17 ships built by us, we may incur additional costs to maintain our position as the sole source supplier for these ships. Any failure to fund such vessels, or, even if funded, to award the construction of such vessels to us, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
The Department of Defense has announced plans for significant changes to its business practices that could have a material effect on its overall procurement process and adversely impact our current programs and potential new awards.
          Recently, the DoD has announced various initiatives designed to gain efficiencies, refocus priorities and enhance business practices used by the DoD, including those used to procure goods and services from defense contractors. The most recent initiatives are organized in five major areas: Affordability and Cost Growth; Productivity and Innovation; Competition; Services Acquisition; and Processes and Bureaucracy.
          These new initiatives are expected to impact significantly the contracting environment in which we do business with our DoD customers. Depending on how they are implemented, they could have a significant impact on current programs as well as new business opportunities. Changes to the DoD acquisition system and contracting models could affect whether and, if so, how we pursue certain opportunities and the terms under which we are able to do so. These initiatives are still fairly new; we expect to understand better the specific impacts to our business as the DoD implements them further.
Our future success depends, in part, on our ability to deliver our products and services at an affordable life cycle cost, requiring us to have and maintain technologies, facilities, equipment and a qualified workforce to meet the needs of current and future customers.
          Shipbuilding is a long cycle business and our success depends on quality, cost and schedule performance on our contracts. We must have and sustain the people, technologies, facilities, equipment and financial capacity needed to deliver our products and services at an affordable life cycle cost. If we fail to maintain our competitive position, we could lose a significant amount of future business to our competitors, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or our ability to maintain market share.
          Operating results are heavily dependent upon our ability to attract and retain a sufficient number of engineers and skilled workers, at competitive costs, with requisite skills and/or security clearances. Additionally, it is important that we have stable future revenues and costs in order to maintain a qualified workforce. The necessary nuclear expertise required

24


Table of Contents

and the challenges of hiring and training a qualified workforce can be a limitation on our business. If qualified personnel become scarce, we could experience higher labor, recruiting or training costs in order to attract and retain such employees or could experience difficulty in performing under our contracts or pursuing new business if the needs for such employees are unmet.
Competition within our markets and an increase in bid protests may reduce our revenues and market share.
          We believe the programs and number of ship constructions, refuelings and overhauls and inactivations currently planned by the U.S. Navy over the next several years will remain relatively steady; however, projected U.S. defense spending levels for periods beyond the near term are uncertain and difficult to predict. While the U.S. Navy’s current 30-Year Plan is based on an optimized 313-ship fleet, the plan itself anticipates procurement for only 276 ships during the 30-year period. Changes in U.S. defense spending may limit certain future market opportunities. If we are unable to continue to compete successfully against our current or future competitors, we may experience declines in revenues and market share which could negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition.
          For example, in the event the U.S. Navy determines it is in its best interest to compete the DDG-51 class of ships and we are unable to win at least one out of three awarded ships, we would experience not only a loss of revenues but such an event could have a material impact on ships in production as well as on our ability to compete and construct affordable ships in the future. Such an event could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          The reduced level of shipbuilding activity by the U.S. Navy during the past decade has resulted in workforce reductions in the industry, but little infrastructure consolidation. The general result has been fewer contracts awarded to the same fixed number of shipyards. There are principally six major private U.S. shipyards, three of which are our shipyards, plus numerous other smaller private shipyards that compete for contracts to construct, overhaul, repair or convert naval vessels. Northrop Grumman recently announced its intention to initiate a wind down and eventual discontinuance of our construction activities at Avondale, our Louisiana shipyard, in 2013 and two Louisiana components facilities by 2013 and consolidate all Gulf Coast construction into our Mississippi facilities. We are also exploring the potential for alternative uses of the Avondale facility by new owners, including alternative opportunities for the workforce there. We expect that process to take some time. After this wind down, we will have two primary shipyards. Competition for future programs is expected to be intense. Additionally, our products, such as aircraft carriers, submarines and other ships, compete with each other, as well as with other defense products and services, for defense monies. We cannot guarantee that there will not be some rationalization of shipyard capacity in the United States and that we will not be subject to shipyard consolidation or closures as a result of the reduced level of U.S. Navy spending on the construction of its naval fleet. Any further reduction could have a significant effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          Although we are the only company currently capable of refueling nuclear-powered carriers, we also believe that two existing government-owned shipyards, one in the U.S. Pacific Northwest and the other in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic, could refuel nuclear-powered carriers if substantial investments in facilities, personnel and training were made. U.S. Government-owned shipyards are presently involved in refueling, overhaul and inactivation of SSN-688 Los Angeles-class submarines and are capable of repairing and overhauling non-nuclear ships.
          We also compete in the engineering, planning and design market with other companies that provide engineering support services. There can be no assurance that we will be the successful bidder on future U.S. Navy engineering work, including aircraft carrier research and development, submarine design and future surface combatant and amphibious assault programs.
          The competitive environment is also affected by bid protests from unsuccessful bidders on new program awards. Bid protests could result in the award decision being overturned, requiring a re-bid of the contract. Even where a bid protest does not result in a re-bid, the resolution typically extends the time until the contract activity can begin, which may reduce our earnings in the period in which the contract would otherwise have commenced.
As a U.S. Government contractor, we are subject to a number of regulations and could be adversely affected by changes in regulations or any negative findings from a U.S. Government audit or investigation.
          U.S. Government contractors must comply with many significant regulations, including procurement, nuclear and other requirements. These regulations and requirements, although customary in government contracts, increase our performance and compliance costs. Our nuclear operations are subject to an enhanced regulatory environment, which mandates increased performance and compliance efforts and costs. If any such regulations or requirements change, our costs of complying with them could increase and reduce our margins.
          We operate in a highly regulated environment and are routinely audited and reviewed by the U.S. Government and its agencies such as the U.S. Navy’s Supervisor of Shipbuilding, the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the Defense

25


Table of Contents

Contract Management Agency. These agencies review our performance under our contracts, our cost structure and our compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and standards, as well as the adequacy of, and our compliance with, our internal control systems and policies. Systems that are subject to review include, but are not limited to, our accounting systems, purchasing systems, billing systems, property management and control systems, cost estimating systems, compensation systems and management information systems. Any costs found to be unallowable or improperly allocated to a specific contract will not be reimbursed or must be refunded if previously reimbursed. If an audit uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, which may include termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines and suspension, or prohibition from doing business with the U.S. Government. Whether or not illegal activities are alleged, the U.S. Government also has the ability to decrease or withhold certain payments when it deems systems subject to its review to be inadequate. In addition, we could suffer serious reputational harm if allegations of impropriety were made against us.
          As with other government contractors, the U.S. Government has, from time to time, recommended that certain of our contract prices be reduced, or that costs allocated to our contracts be disallowed. Some of these recommendations involve substantial amounts. In the past, as a result of such audits and other investigations and inquiries, we have on occasion made minor adjustments to our contract prices and the costs allocated to our government contracts. We cannot guarantee that such audits, investigations and inquiries will not result in reductions of our contract prices in the future.
          We are also, from time to time, subject to U.S. Government investigations relating to our operations, and we are subject to or are expected to perform in compliance with a vast array of federal laws, including but not limited to the Truth in Negotiations Act, the False Claims Act, Procurement Integrity Act, Cost Accounting Standards, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations promulgated under the Arms Export Control Act, the Close the Contractor Fraud Loophole Act and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. If we are convicted or otherwise found to have violated the law, or are found not to have acted responsibly as defined by the law, we may be subject to reductions of the value of contracts, contract modifications or termination and the assessment of penalties and fines, compensatory or treble damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions or results of operations. Such findings or convictions could also result in suspension or debarment from government contracting. Given our dependence on government contracting, suspension or debarment could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Many of our contracts contain performance obligations that require innovative design capabilities, are technologically complex, require state-of-the-art manufacturing expertise or are dependent upon factors not wholly within our control and failure to meet these obligations could adversely affect our profitability and future prospects.
          We design, develop and manufacture technologically advanced and innovative products and services applied by our customers in a variety of environments. Problems and delays in development or delivery of subcontractor components or services as a result of issues with respect to design, technology, licensing and patent rights, labor, learning curve assumptions or materials and components could prevent us from achieving contractual requirements.
          First-in-class ships, also known as lead ships, usually have new technology that is either supplied by the U.S. Navy, us or other contractors. Problems in developing these new technologies or design changes later in the construction process could lead to delays in maintaining the design schedule needed for construction. The risk associated with new technology or mid-construction design changes could both increase the cost of a ship and delay delivery. For example, the new CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford-class has many new technologies with several of them still in development. Those technologies include but are not limited to EMALS (the electromagnetic aircraft launch system), AAG (the advanced arresting gear) and DBR (the dual band radar). All three of these are being developed concurrently with the ship under construction. Late delivery of information could drive inefficiencies in the construction process, increase cost and put the delivery schedule at risk, and could adversely affect our profitability and future prospects.
          In addition, our products cannot be tested and proven in all situations and are otherwise subject to unforeseen problems. Examples of unforeseen problems that could negatively affect revenue and profitability include premature failure of products that cannot be accessed for repair or replacement, problems with quality or workmanship and unplanned degradation of product performance. These failures could result, either directly or indirectly, in loss of life or property. Among the factors that may affect revenue and profits could be unforeseen costs and expenses not covered by insurance or indemnification from the customer, diversion of management focus in responding to unforeseen problems, loss of follow-on work and, in the case of certain contracts, repayment to the government customer of contract cost and fee payments we previously received.
          In 2009, we received notice of an investigation regarding work performed by our Gulf Coast shipyards on the LPD-17 San Antonio-class ships. While the investigation did not result in any fraud or willful misconduct being alleged, in response to the concerns regarding the quality of our products, in 2009, our Gulf Coast shipyards began implementation of a new management approach focused on better organizing and managing the construction of the ships we build. There can be no assurance that this approach will deliver high quality products in a safe, timely and cost-effective manner as intended,

26


Table of Contents

and there may be difficulties related to its implementation. We have also encountered various quality issues on our aircraft carrier construction and overhaul programs and our SSN-774 Virginia-class submarine construction program at our Newport News location. These include matters related to filler metal used in pipe welds identified in 2007, and in 2009, issues associated with non-nuclear weld inspection and the installation of weapons handling equipment on certain submarines. We may discover additional quality issues related to our products requiring analysis and corrective action in the future. Although we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect arising from any currently identified or future issues, we cannot make assurances that potential undiscovered issues would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations in the future.
          In addition, we have experienced several quality issues in the Gulf Coast related to our LPD-17 class of ships. In the second quarter of 2009, as a result of a review of the design, engineering and production processes undertaken as a result of leaks discovered in the LPD-17 USS San Antonio’s lube oil system, we became aware of quality issues relating to certain pipe welds on ships under production in the Gulf Coast as well as those that had previously been delivered. Since that discovery, we have been working with the customer to determine the nature and extent of the pipe weld issue and its possible impact on related shipboard systems. This effort has resulted in the preparation of a technical analysis of the problem, additional inspections on the ships, a rework plan for ships previously delivered and in various stages of production, and modifications to the work plans for ships in production. Although not fully resolved with the U.S. Navy, we believe that the incremental costs associated with the anticipated resolution of these matters have been appropriately reflected in our financial statements. In the fourth quarter of 2009, certain bearing wear and debris were found in the lubrication system of the main propulsion diesel engines (“MPDE”) installed on LPD-21. We are participating with the U.S. Navy and other industry participants involved with the MPDEs in a review panel to examine the MPDE lubrication system’s design, construction, operation and maintenance for the LPD-17 class of ships. To date, the review has identified several potential system improvements for increasing the system reliability and certain changes are being implemented on ships under construction at this time. We continue to work in partnership to investigate and identify any additional corrective actions to address quality issues and will implement appropriate corrective actions consistent with our contractual and legal obligations. We do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
We may not realize the anticipated benefits related to the wind down of our construction activities at Avondale, our Louisiana shipyard, and two Louisiana components facilities and the consolidation of all Gulf Coast construction into our Mississippi facilities.
          In July 2010, Northrop Grumman announced its intention to wind down our construction activities at Avondale, our Louisiana shipyard, in 2013 and two Louisiana components facilities by 2013, after completing LPD-17 San Antonio-class ships currently under construction, and consolidate all Gulf Coast construction into our Mississippi facilities. Future LPD-class ships will be built in a single production line at our Pascagoula, Mississippi facility. The consolidation is intended to reduce costs, increase efficiency and address shipbuilding overcapacity. We are also exploring the potential for alternative uses of the Avondale facility by new owners, including alternative opportunities for the workforce there. We expect that process to take some time. We cannot provide any assurances that consolidation of shipbuilding activities in our Pascagoula and Gulfport facilities will result in our realization of benefits from serial production at those facilities. In connection with the increased utilization of our employees and facilities in our Pascagoula shipyard, we may encounter difficulties in adhering to back-to-back production schedules. An inability to adhere to production schedules could have an adverse effect on our ability to timely perform under our contracts and to obtain new contracts in the future. Furthermore, because our workforce will be located primarily in two locations, we may not be able to attract and retain a sufficient number of skilled and trained employees to perform the increased workload in Pascagoula and Gulfport. Any failure to attract and retain the necessary workforce, or to effectively manage and control third-party contractors, could adversely affect our ability to perform under our contracts and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, due to the consolidation, we expect higher costs to complete ships currently under construction in Avondale due to anticipated reductions in productivity, and have increased the estimates to complete for LPDs 23 and 25 by approximately $210 million. We recognized a $113 million pre-tax charge to second quarter 2010 operating income for these contracts, which are both now in a forward loss position.
          In addition, we anticipate that we will incur substantial restructuring and facilities shutdown-related costs and asset write-downs related to the wind down of our operations at Avondale. We have assumed that the restructuring expenses associated with the wind down of those operations will be recoverable and prorated over five years consistent with government accounting regulations. However, we do not have an agreement with our customer in place regarding the treatment of these costs, the actual restructuring expenses related to the wind down may be greater than our current estimate and any inability to recover such costs could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

27


Table of Contents

We use estimates when accounting for contracts. Changes in estimates could affect our profitability and our overall financial position.
          Contract accounting requires judgment relative to assessing risks, estimating contract revenues and costs, and making assumptions for schedule and technical issues. Due to the size and nature of many of our contracts, the estimation of total revenues and costs at completion is complicated and subject to many variables. For new programs, we estimate, negotiate and contract for construction on ships that are not completely designed. Therefore, assessing risks, estimating contract revenues and costs, and making assumptions for schedule and technical issues for these ships is subject to the variability of the final ship design and evolving scope of work. For all ships, assumptions have to be made regarding the length of time to complete the contract because costs also include expected increases in wages and prices for materials. Similarly, assumptions have to be made regarding the future impact of our efficiency initiatives and cost reduction efforts. Incentives, awards or penalties related to performance on contracts are considered in estimating revenue and profit rates, and are recorded when there is sufficient information to assess anticipated performance.
          Because of the significance of the judgment and estimation processes described above, it is possible that materially different amounts could be obtained if different assumptions were used or if the underlying circumstances were to change. Changes in underlying assumptions, circumstances or estimates may have a material adverse effect upon future period financial reporting and performance. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Policies.”
Our business is subject to disruption caused by natural disasters, environmental disasters and other factors that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
          We have significant operations located in regions of the United States that have been and may be exposed to damaging storms, such as hurricanes, and environmental disasters, such as oil spills. Although preventative measures may help to mitigate damage, the damage and disruption resulting from natural and environmental disasters may be significant. Should insurance or other risk transfer mechanisms be unavailable or insufficient to recover all costs, we could experience a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. See “—Our insurance coverage may be inadequate to cover all of our significant risks or our insurers may deny coverage of material losses we incur, which could adversely affect our profitability and overall financial position.”
          Our suppliers and subcontractors are also subject to natural and environmental disasters that could affect their ability to deliver or perform under a contract. Performance failures by our subcontractors due to natural or environmental disasters may adversely affect our ability to perform our obligations on the prime contract, which could reduce our profitability due to damages or other costs that may not be fully recoverable from the subcontractor or from the customer or our insurers and could result in a termination of the prime contract and have an adverse effect on our ability to compete for future contracts.
          Natural disasters can also disrupt our workforce, electrical and other power distribution networks, including computer and internet operation and accessibility, and the critical industrial infrastructure needed for normal business operations. These disruptions could cause adverse effects on our profitability and performance. Environmental disasters, particularly oil spills in waterways and bodies of water used for the transport and testing of our ships, can disrupt the timing of our performance under our contracts with the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard.
Our insurance coverage may be inadequate to cover all of our significant risks or our insurers may deny coverage of material losses we incur, which could adversely affect our profitability and overall financial position.
          We endeavor to identify and obtain, in established markets, insurance agreements to cover significant risks and liabilities (including, among others, natural disasters, product liability and business interruption). Not every risk or liability can be protected by insurance, and, for insurable risks, the limits of coverage reasonably obtainable in the market may not be sufficient to cover all actual losses or liabilities incurred, including, for example, a catastrophic hurricane claim. In some, but not all, circumstances, we may receive indemnification from the U.S. Government. Because of the limitations in overall available coverage referred to above, we may have to bear substantial costs for uninsured losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Additionally, disputes with insurance carriers over coverage may affect the timing of cash flows and, if litigation with the carrier becomes necessary, an outcome unfavorable to us may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          We are pursuing legal action against an insurance provider, Factory Mutual Insurance Company (“FM Global”), arising out of a disagreement concerning the coverage of certain losses related to Hurricane Katrina (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 15”). Legal action was commenced against FM Global on November 4, 2005, which is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. In August 2007, the District Court issued an order finding that the excess insurance policy provided coverage for Katrina-related losses. In November 2007, FM Global filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s order. On August 14, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the earlier summary judgment order in favor of Northrop Grumman’s interest,

28


Table of Contents

holding that the FM Global excess policy unambiguously excludes damage from the storm surge caused by Hurricane Katrina under its “Flood” exclusion. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether the California efficient proximate cause doctrine affords coverage sought by the company under the policy even if the Flood exclusion of the policy is unambiguous. Northrop Grumman filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, or in the Alternative, for Panel Rehearing with the Ninth Circuit on August 27, 2008. On April 2, 2009, the Ninth Circuit denied Northrop Grumman’s Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District Court. On June 10, 2009, Northrop Grumman filed a motion seeking leave of court to file a complaint adding AON Risk Services, Inc. of Southern California (“AON”) as a defendant. On July 1, 2009, FM Global filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a determination that the California efficient proximate cause doctrine is not applicable or that it affords no coverage under the policy. On August 26, 2010, the District Court denied Northrop Grumman’s motion to add AON as a defendant to the case pending in federal court, finding that Northrop Grumman has a viable option to bring suit against AON in state court if it so chooses. Also on August 26, the District Court granted FM Global’s motion for summary judgment based upon California’s doctrine of efficient proximate cause, and denied FM Global’s motion for summary judgment based upon breach of contract, finding that triable issues of fact remained as to whether and to what extent we sustained wind damage apart from the storm surge that inundated our Pascagoula facility. We intend to continue to pursue the breach of contract litigation against FM Global and will consider whether to bring a separate action against AON in state court. Based on the current status of the litigation, no assurances can be made as to the ultimate outcome of this matter.
          During 2008, notification from Munich-American Risk Partners (“Munich Re”), the only remaining insurer within the primary layer of insurance coverage with which a resolution has not been reached, was received noting that it will pursue arbitration proceedings against Northrop Grumman related to approximately $19 million owed by Munich Re to Northrop Grumman Risk Management Inc. (“NGRMI”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Northrop Grumman, for certain losses related to Hurricane Katrina. Northrop Grumman was subsequently notified that Munich Re also will seek reimbursement of approximately $44 million of funds previously advanced to NGRMI for payment of claim losses of which Munich Re provided reinsurance protection to NGRMI pursuant to an executed reinsurance contract, and $6 million of adjustment expenses. We believe that NGRMI is entitled to full reimbursement of its covered losses under the reinsurance contract and has substantive defenses to the claim of Munich Re for return of the funds paid to date, but can make no assurances as to the outcome of this matter. Any payments to be made to NGRMI in connection with this matter would be for the benefit of our accounts, and payments to be made to Munich Re, if any, would be made by us.
Our business could suffer if we are unsuccessful in negotiating new collective bargaining agreements.
          Approximately 50 percent of our approximately 39,000 employees are covered by a total of 10 collective bargaining agreements. We expect to re-negotiate renewals of each of our collective bargaining agreements between 2012 and 2014 as they approach expiration. Collective bargaining agreements generally expire after three to five years and are subject to renegotiation at that time. While we believe we maintain good relationships with our represented workers, and it is not expected that the results of these negotiations will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations, it is possible that we may experience difficulties with renewals and renegotiations of existing collective bargaining agreements. If we experience such difficulties, we could incur additional expenses and work stoppages. Any such expenses or delays could adversely affect programs served by employees who are covered by collective bargaining agreements. In the recent past, we have experienced some work stoppages, strikes and other labor disruptions associated with the collective bargaining of new labor agreements.
Pension and medical expenses associated with our retirement benefit plans may fluctuate significantly depending upon changes in actuarial assumptions, future market performance of plan assets, future trends in health care costs and legislative or other regulatory actions.
          A substantial portion of our current and retired employee population is covered by pension plans, the costs of which are dependent upon various assumptions, including estimates of rates of return on benefit-related assets, discount rates for future payment obligations, rates of future cost growth and trends for future costs. Variances from these estimates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. See “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 16.” In addition, funding requirements for benefit obligations of our pension plans are subject to legislative and other government regulatory actions. For example, due to government regulations, pension plan cost recoveries under our government contracts may occur in different periods from when those pension costs are accrued for financial statement purposes or when pension funding is made. Timing differences between pension costs accrued for financial statement purposes or when pension funding occurs compared to when such costs are recoverable as allowable costs under our government contracts could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow from operations.
          In addition, on May 10, 2010, the U.S. Government Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) that, if adopted, would provide a framework to partially harmonize the CAS rules with the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (“PPA”) funding requirements. As with the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

29


Table of Contents

(“ANPRM”) that was issued on September 2, 2008, the NPRM would “harmonize” by partially mitigating the mismatch between CAS costs and PPA-amended ERISA minimum funding requirements. Compared to the ANPRM, the NPRM simplifies the rules and the transition process, and, in some cases, results in an acceleration of allowable CAS pension costs over the next five years as compared with our current CAS pension costs. Until the final rule is published, and to the extent that the final rule does not completely eliminate mismatches between ERISA funding requirements and CAS pension costs, government contractors maintaining defined benefit pension plans will continue to experience a timing mismatch between required contributions and pension expenses recoverable under CAS. The CAS Board is expected to issue a final rule in late 2010. Depending on the effective date, the final rule will likely apply to our contracts starting in 2011. We anticipate that government contractors will be entitled to an equitable adjustment for any additional CAS contract costs resulting from the final rule.
Unforeseen environmental costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          Our operations are subject to and affected by a variety of federal, state and local environmental protection laws and regulations. In addition, we could be affected by future laws or regulations, including those imposed in response to climate change concerns or other actions commonly referred to as “green initiatives.” To comply with current and future environmental laws and regulations and to meet this goal, we expect to incur capital and operating costs, but at this time we are not aware of any such costs that would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          The nature of shipbuilding operations requires the use of hazardous materials. Our shipyards also generate significant quantities of wastewater, which we treat before discharging pursuant to various permits. In order to handle these materials, our shipyards have an extensive network of above-ground and underground storage tanks, some of which have leaked and required remediation in the past. In addition, the extensive handling of these materials sometimes results in spills in the shipyards and occasionally in the adjacent rivers and waterways where we operate. The shipyards also have extensive waste handling programs that we maintain and periodically modify consistent with changes in applicable regulations. The cumulative cost of these normal operations is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. See “Business—Environmental, Health and Safety.”
          Various federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations impose limitations on the discharge of pollutants into the environment and establish standards for the transportation, storage and disposal of toxic and hazardous wastes. Stringent fines and penalties may be imposed for noncompliance and certain environmental laws impose joint and several “strict liability” for remediation of spills and releases of oil and hazardous substances rendering a person liable for environmental clean-up and remediation costs and damage, without regard to negligence or fault on the part of such person. Such laws and regulations may expose us to liability for the conduct of or conditions caused by others, including, without limitation, Northrop Grumman. To the extent that we have any exposure to liability for conduct by Northrop Grumman with respect to its businesses not related to the shipbuilding business, we expect to be indemnified for such liability.
          Environmental laws and regulations can also impose substantial fines and criminal sanctions for violations, and may require the installation of costly pollution control equipment or operational changes to limit pollution emissions or discharges and/or decrease the likelihood of accidental hazardous substance releases. We also incur, and expect to continue to incur, costs to comply with current federal and state environmental laws and regulations related to the cleanup of pollutants previously released into the environment. In addition, if we are found to be in violation of the Federal Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act, the facility or facilities involved in the violation could be placed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) on the “Excluded Parties List” maintained by the General Services Administration. The listing would continue until the EPA concludes that the cause of the violation had been cured. Listed facilities cannot be used in performing any U.S. Government contract while they are listed by the EPA.
          The adoption of new laws and regulations, stricter enforcement of existing laws and regulations, imposition of new cleanup requirements, discovery of previously unknown or more extensive contamination, litigation involving environmental impacts, our ability to recover such costs under previously priced contracts or financial insolvency of other responsible parties could cause us to incur costs in the future that would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          On June 4, 2010, the EPA proposed new regulations at 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart DDDDD entitled “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters.” NGSB owns and operates five residual oil-fired industrial boilers for supplying process and building steam along with supplying high pressure steam to ships under construction. We believe that these boilers will be significantly adversely affected by these regulations, if adopted as proposed. The capital cost to replace these could be significant although we do not expect them to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

30


Table of Contents

          Northrop Grumman recently announced its intention to wind down our construction activities at Avondale, our Louisiana shipyard, in 2013 and two Louisiana components facilities by 2013 and consolidate all Gulf Coast construction into our Mississippi facilities. The transition plan, covering a period of more than two years, provides the opportunity to work with federal, state and local officials and others to explore other uses for the Avondale facility, allowing time for an orderly adjustment of the Avondale workforce. It is possible that the winding down of operations at Avondale may result in environmental costs. However, these costs are not known and cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
Market volatility and adverse capital or credit market conditions may affect our ability to access cost-effective sources of funding and expose us to risks associated with the financial viability of suppliers and the ability of counterparties to perform on financial instruments.
          The financial and credit markets recently experienced high levels of volatility and disruption, reducing the availability of credit for certain issuers. We expect to access these markets to support certain business activities, including acquisitions, capital expansion projects, obtaining credit support for our self-insurance for workers’ compensation, refinancing existing debt and issuing letters of credit. In the future, we may not be able to obtain capital market financing or credit availability on favorable terms, or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
          A tightening of credit could also adversely affect our suppliers’ ability to obtain financing. Delays in suppliers’ ability to obtain financing, or the unavailability of financing, could cause us to be unable to meet our contract obligations and could adversely affect our results of operations. The inability of our suppliers to obtain financing could also result in the need for us to transition to alternate suppliers, which could result in significant incremental cost and delay.
          We may execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, commercial banks, investment banks and other institutional parties. These transactions expose us to potential credit risk in the event of default of a counterparty. In addition, our credit risk may be increased when collateral held by us cannot be realized upon a sale or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the loan or derivative exposure due to it.
Our reputation and our ability to do business may be impacted by the improper conduct of employees, agents or business partners.
          We have implemented extensive compliance controls, policies and procedures to prevent and detect reckless or criminal acts committed by employees, agents or business partners that would violate the laws of the jurisdictions in which we operate, including laws governing payments to government officials, security clearance breaches, cost accounting and billing, competition and data privacy. However, we cannot ensure that we will prevent all such reckless or criminal acts committed by our employees, agents or business partners. Any improper actions could subject us to civil or criminal investigations and monetary and non-monetary penalties, and could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations.
Our business could be negatively impacted by security threats and other disruptions.
          As a defense contractor, we face certain security threats, including threats to our information technology infrastructure and unlawful attempts to gain access to our proprietary or classified information. Our information technology networks and related systems are critical to the smooth operation of our business and essential to our ability to perform day-to-day operations. Loss of security within this critical operational infrastructure could disrupt our operations, require significant management attention and resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Our nuclear operations subject us to various environmental, regulatory, financial and other risks.
          The development and operation of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, nuclear-powered submarines, nuclear facilities and other nuclear operations subject us to various risks, including:
    potential liabilities relating to harmful effects on the environment and human health resulting from nuclear operations and the storage, handling and disposal of radioactive materials;
 
    unplanned expenditures relating to maintenance, operation, security and repair, including repairs required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and
 
    potential liabilities arising out of a nuclear incident whether or not it is within our control.
          The U.S. Government provides indemnity protection against specified risks under our contracts pursuant to Public Law 85-804 and the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act for certain of our nuclear operations risks. Our nuclear operations are subject to various safety-related requirements imposed by the U.S. Navy, DoE and Nuclear

31


Table of Contents

Regulatory Commission. In the event of noncompliance, these agencies may increase regulatory oversight, impose fines or shut down our operations, depending upon the assessment of the severity of the situation. Revised security and safety requirements promulgated by these agencies could necessitate substantial capital and other expenditures. Additionally, while we maintain insurance for certain risks related to transportation of low level nuclear materials and waste, such as contaminated clothing, and for regulatory changes in the health, safety and fire protection areas, there can be no assurances that such insurance will be sufficient to cover our costs in the event of an accident or business interruption relating to our nuclear operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Changes in future business conditions could cause business investments and/or recorded goodwill to become impaired, resulting in substantial losses and write-downs that would reduce our operating income.
          As part of our overall strategy, we may, from time to time, acquire a minority or majority interest in a business. These investments are made upon careful analysis and due diligence procedures designed to achieve a desired return or strategic objective. These procedures often involve certain assumptions and judgment in determining acquisition price. Even after careful integration efforts, actual operating results may vary significantly from initial estimates. Goodwill accounts for approximately a quarter of our recorded total assets. In the past, we have evaluated goodwill amounts for impairment annually on November 30, or when evidence of potential impairment exists. The impairment test is based on several factors requiring judgment. Principally, a significant decrease in expected cash flows or changes in market conditions may indicate potential impairment of recorded goodwill. Adverse equity market conditions that result in a decline in market multiples and our stock price could result in an impairment of goodwill and/or other intangible assets.
          For example, we recorded a non-cash charge totaling $2,490 million in the fourth quarter of 2008 for the impairment of goodwill. The impairment was primarily driven by adverse equity market conditions that caused a decrease in market multiples and the parent’s stock price as of November 30, 2008. The charge reduced goodwill recorded in connection with Northrop Grumman’s 2001 acquisition of Newport News Shipbuilding, Inc. and Litton Industries, Inc. (“Litton”).
          If we are required in the future to recognize any additional impairments to goodwill, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Unanticipated changes in our tax provisions or exposure to additional income tax liabilities could affect our profitability and cash flow.
          We are subject to income taxes in the United States. Significant judgment is required in determining our provision for income taxes. In the ordinary course of business, there are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. In addition, timing differences in the recognition of income from contracts for financial statement purposes and for income tax regulations can cause uncertainty with respect to the timing of income tax payments which can have a significant impact on cash flow in a particular period. Furthermore, changes in applicable income tax laws and regulations, or their interpretation, could result in higher or lower income tax rates assessed or changes in the taxability of certain sales or the deductibility of certain expenses, thereby affecting our income tax expense and profitability. The final determination of any tax audits or related litigation could be materially different from our historical income tax provisions and accruals. Additionally, changes in our tax rate as a result of changes in our overall profitability, changes in tax legislation, changes in the valuation of deferred tax assets and liabilities, changes in differences between financial reporting income and taxable income, the results of audits and the examination of previously filed tax returns by taxing authorities and continuing assessments of our tax exposures could impact our tax liabilities and affect our income tax expense, profitability and cash flow.
          As of December 31, 2009, the estimated value of our uncertain tax positions was a potential liability of $26 million, which includes accrued interest of $5 million. If our positions are sustained by the taxing authority in our favor, the reversal of the entire balance would reduce our income tax provision.
We conduct a portion of our operations through joint ventures and strategic alliances. We may have limited control over decisions and controls of joint venture projects and have returns that are not proportional to the risks and resources we contribute.
          We conduct a portion of our operations through joint ventures, where control may be shared with unaffiliated third parties. For more information, see “Business—Our Business.”
          In any joint venture arrangement, differences in views among the joint venture participants may result in delayed decisions or in failures to agree on major issues, and we cannot guarantee that we and our joint venture partners will always reach agreement on a timely basis, or at all. We also cannot control the actions of our joint venture partners, including any nonperformance, default or bankruptcy of our joint venture partners, and we typically share liability or have joint and/or several liability along with our joint venture partners under these joint venture arrangements. These factors could potentially have a material adverse effect on our joint ventures.

32


Table of Contents

          Operating through joint ventures in which we are the minority holder results in limited control over many decisions made with respect to projects and internal controls relating to projects. These joint ventures may not be subject to the same requirements regarding internal controls and internal control reporting that we follow. As a result, internal control issues may arise which could have a material adverse effect on the joint venture. When entering into joint ventures, in order to establish or preserve relationships with our joint venture partners, we may agree to risks and contributions of resources that are proportionately greater than the returns we could receive, which could reduce our income and returns on these investments compared to what we would have received if the risks and resources we contributed were always proportionate to our returns.
          Accordingly, our financial results could be adversely affected from unanticipated performance issues, transaction-related charges and partner performance. Although we believe that we have established appropriate and adequate procedures and processes to mitigate these risks, there is no assurance that these transactions will be successful.
Our actual results may differ materially from the business trends included in this information statement.
          In addition to the historical information included herein, this information statement contains statements, including business trends, which are forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from those trends and other forward-looking statements as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including those discussed in this information statement, as well as other risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to those detailed from time to time in our filings with the SEC. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Recent Accounting Pronouncements.”
We are subject to various claims and litigation that could ultimately be resolved against us, requiring material future cash payments and/or future material charges against our operating income, materially impairing our financial position.
          The size, type and complexity of our business make it highly susceptible to claims and litigation. We are and may become subject to various environmental claims and other litigation which, if not resolved within established reserves, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operation or cash flows. Any claims and litigation, even if fully indemnified or insured, could negatively impact our reputation among our customers and the public, and make it more difficult for us to compete effectively or obtain adequate insurance in the future.
          In the second quarter of 2007, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a revocation of acceptance under the Deepwater Modernization Program for eight converted 123-foot patrol boats (the “vessels”) based on alleged “hull buckling and shaft alignment problems” and alleged “nonconforming topside equipment” on the vessels. We submitted a written response that argued that the revocation of acceptance was improper. The U.S. Coast Guard advised ICGS, which was formed by us and Lockheed Martin to perform the Deepwater Modernization Program, that it was seeking $96.1 million from ICGS as a result of the revocation of acceptance. The majority of the costs associated with the 123-foot conversion effort are associated with the alleged structural deficiencies of the vessels, which were converted under contracts with us and one of our subcontractors. In 2008, the U.S. Coast Guard advised ICGS that the U.S. Coast Guard would support an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice of ICGS and its subcontractors instead of pursuing its $96.1 million claim independently. The Department of Justice conducted an investigation of ICGS under a sealed False Claims Act complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and decided in early 2009 not to intervene at that time. On February 12, 2009, the Court unsealed the complaint filed by Michael J. DeKort, a former Lockheed Martin employee, against us, ICGS and Lockheed Martin Corporation, relating to the 123-foot conversion effort. On April 5, 2010, the District Court ruled on the defendants’ motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part. As to us, the District Court dismissed conspiracy claims and those pertaining to the C4ISR systems. The District Court denied the motion with respect to those claims relating to hull, mechanical and engineering work. We can give no assurance that we will prevail in this litigation.
          We and our predecessors in interest are defendants in several hundred cases filed in numerous jurisdictions around the country wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos-containing materials on or associated with our premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by us. The cases allege various injuries including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma and other alleged asbestos-related conditions. In some cases, in addition to us, several of our former executive officers are also named defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to us for our potential liability and that of our former executive officers. Because of the varying nature of these actions, and based upon the information available to us to date, we believe we have substantive defenses in many of these cases but can give no assurance that we will prevail on all claims in each of these cases.
          Based on information available, we believe that the resolution of any existing claims or legal proceedings would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

33


Table of Contents

We may be unable to adequately protect our intellectual property rights, which could affect our ability to compete.
          We own or have the right to use certain patents, trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property. The U.S. Government has rights to use certain intellectual property we develop in performance of government contracts, and it may use or authorize others to use such intellectual property. Our intellectual property is subject to challenge, invalidation, misappropriation or circumvention by third parties.
          We also rely upon proprietary technology, information, processes and know-how that are not protected by patents. We seek to protect this information through trade secret or confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, subcontractors and other parties, as well as through other security measures. These agreements may not provide meaningful protection for our unpatented proprietary information. In the event our intellectual property rights are infringed, we may not have adequate legal remedies to maintain our intellectual property. Litigation to determine the scope of our rights, even if successful, could be costly and a diversion of management’s attention away from other aspects of our business. In addition, trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently developed by competitors.
          In some instances, we have licensed the proprietary intellectual property of others, but we may be unable in the future to secure the necessary licenses to use such intellectual property on commercially reasonable terms.
Risks Relating to the Spin-Off
          We face the following risks in connection with the spin-off:
We may incur greater costs as an independent company than we did when we were part of Northrop Grumman.
          As a current subsidiary of Northrop Grumman, we take advantage of Northrop Grumman’s size and purchasing power in procuring certain goods and services such as insurance and health care benefits, and technology such as computer software licenses. We also rely on Northrop Grumman to provide various corporate functions. After the spin-off, as a separate, independent entity, we may be unable to obtain these goods, services and technologies at prices or on terms as favorable to us as those we obtained prior to the distribution. We may also incur costs for functions previously performed by Northrop Grumman that are higher than the amounts reflected in our historical financial statements, which could cause our profitability to decrease.
We expect to incur new indebtedness upon consummation of the spin-off and the degree to which we will be leveraged following completion of the spin-off may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          We have historically relied upon Northrop Grumman for working capital requirements on a short-term basis and for other financial support functions. After the spin-off, we will not be able to rely on the earnings, assets or cash flow of Northrop Grumman, and we will be responsible for servicing our own debt, obtaining and maintaining sufficient working capital and paying dividends. We expect to have new indebtedness upon completion of the spin-off, a portion of the proceeds of which will be transferred to NGSC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Northrop Grumman. Given the smaller relative size of the company as compared to Northrop Grumman after the spin-off, we expect to incur higher debt servicing costs on the new indebtedness than we would have otherwise incurred previously as a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman. Our debt upon completion of the spin-off will include (i) a Loan Agreement between Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. (“Ingalls”), which is now part of NGSB, and the MBFC, under which we borrowed the proceeds of the MBFC’s 1999 issuance of $83.7 million of Economic Development Revenue Bonds, (ii) a Loan Agreement between Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. (“NGSS”), which is now part of NGSB, and the MBFC, under which we borrowed the proceeds of the MBFC’s issuance of $200 million of Gulf Opportunity Zone Industrial Revenue Bonds and (iii) debt that we expect to incur from an unrelated party or group of parties, the net proceeds of which are expected to be used to fund the Contribution and for general corporate purposes.
          Our ability to make payments on and to refinance our indebtedness, including the debt retained or incurred pursuant to the spin-off as well as any future debt that we may incur, will depend on our ability to generate cash in the future from operations, financings or asset sales. Our ability to generate cash is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control. If we are not able to repay or refinance our debt as it becomes due, we may be forced to sell assets or take other disadvantageous actions, including (i) reducing financing in the future for working capital, capital expenditures and general corporate purposes or (ii) dedicating an unsustainable level of our cash flow from operations to the payment of principal and interest on our indebtedness. In addition, our ability to withstand competitive pressures and to react to changes in the shipbuilding and defense industries could be impaired. The lenders who hold such debt could also accelerate amounts due, which could potentially trigger a default or acceleration of our other debt.

34


Table of Contents

We may be unable to achieve some or all of the benefits that we expect to achieve from the spin-off.
          As an independent, publicly traded company, we believe that our business will benefit from, among other things, (i) greater strategic focus of financial resources and management’s efforts, (ii) enhanced customer focus, (iii) direct and differentiated access to capital markets and (iv) enhanced investor choices by offering investment opportunities in a separate entity from Northrop Grumman. However, by separating from Northrop Grumman, we may be more susceptible to market fluctuations and other adverse events than we would have been were we still a part of Northrop Grumman. In addition, we may not be able to achieve some or all of the benefits that we expect to achieve as an independent company in the time we expect, if at all.
We may increase our debt or raise additional capital in the future, which could affect our financial health, and may decrease our profitability.
          We may increase our debt or raise additional capital in the future, subject to restrictions in our debt agreements. If our cash flow from operations is less than we anticipate, or if our cash requirements are more than we expect, we may require more financing. However, debt or equity financing may not be available to us on terms acceptable to us, if at all. If we incur additional debt or raise equity through the issuance of our preferred stock, the terms of the debt or our preferred stock issued may give the holders rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of holders of our common stock, particularly in the event of liquidation. The terms of the debt may also impose additional and more stringent restrictions on our operations than we currently have. If we raise funds through the issuance of additional equity, your ownership in us would be diluted. If we are unable to raise additional capital when needed, it could affect our financial health, which could negatively affect your investment in us. Also, regardless of the terms of our debt or equity financing, the amount of our stock that we can issue may be limited because the issuance of our stock may cause the distribution to be a taxable event for Northrop Grumman under Section 355(e) of the Code and under the Tax Sharing Agreement we could be required to indemnify Northrop Grumman for that tax. See “—We may be responsible for U.S. Federal income tax liabilities that relate to the distribution.”
We may be responsible for U.S. Federal income tax liabilities that relate to the distribution.
          We have received an IRS Ruling, and expect to receive an opinion of counsel, stating that Northrop Grumman, Northrop Grumman’s stockholders and New Ships will not recognize any taxable income, gain or loss for U.S. Federal income tax purposes as a result of the spin-off, including the internal reorganization, except with respect to cash received by Northrop Grumman’s stockholders in lieu of fractional shares. Receipt of the IRS Ruling and opinion of counsel will satisfy a condition to completion of the spin-off. See “The Spin-Off—U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Spin-Off.” The IRS Ruling, while generally binding upon the IRS, is based on certain factual statements and representations. If any such factual statements or representations were incomplete or untrue in any material respect, or if the facts on which the IRS Ruling is based are materially different from the facts at the time of the spin-off, the IRS could modify or revoke the IRS Ruling retroactively.
          An opinion of counsel is not binding on the IRS. Accordingly, the IRS may reach conclusions with respect to the spin-off that are different from the conclusions reached in the opinion. Like the IRS Ruling, the opinion will be based on certain factual statements and representations, which, if incomplete or untrue in any material respect, could alter counsel’s conclusions.
          Northrop Grumman is not aware of any facts or circumstances that would cause any such factual statements or representations in the IRS Ruling or the legal opinion to be incomplete or untrue or cause the facts on which the IRS Ruling is based, or the legal opinion will be based, to be materially different from the facts at the time of the spin-off.
          If all or a portion of the spin-off does not qualify as a tax-free transaction because any of the factual statements or representations in the IRS Ruling or the opinion are incomplete or untrue, or because the facts upon which the IRS Ruling is based are materially different from the facts at the time of the spin-off, Northrop Grumman would recognize a substantial gain for U.S. Federal income tax purposes. In such case, under IRS regulations each member of Northrop Grumman consolidated group at the time of the spin-off (including us and our subsidiaries), would be severally liable for the resulting U.S. Federal income tax liability.
          Even if the spin-off otherwise qualifies as a tax-free transaction for U.S. Federal income tax purposes, the distribution will be taxable to Northrop Grumman (but not to Northrop Grumman stockholders) pursuant to Section 355(e) of the Internal Revenue Code if there are one or more acquisitions (including issuances) of the stock of either us or Northrop Grumman, representing 50 percent or more, measured by vote or value, of the then-outstanding stock of either corporation and the acquisition or acquisitions are deemed to be part of a plan or series of related transactions that include the distribution. Any acquisition of our common stock within two years before or after the distribution (with exceptions, including public trading by less-than-5 percent stockholders and certain compensatory stock issuances) generally will be presumed to be part of such a plan unless we can rebut that presumption. The tax liability resulting from the application of

35


Table of Contents

Section 355(e) would be substantial. In addition, under IRS regulations, each member of the Northrop Grumman consolidated group at the time of the spin-off (including us and our subsidiaries) would be severally liable for the resulting U.S. Federal income tax liability.
          We will agree not to enter into any transaction that could cause any portion of the spin-off to be taxable to Northrop Grumman, including under Section 355(e). We will also agree to indemnify Northrop Grumman for any tax liabilities resulting from such transactions. These obligations may discourage, delay or prevent a change of control of our company. For additional detail, see “—Anti-takeover provisions in our organizational documents and Delaware law could delay or prevent a change in control” and “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Agreements with Northrop Grumman Related to the Spin-Off—Tax Sharing Agreement.”
We may be unable to make, on a timely or cost-effective basis, the changes necessary to operate as an independent, publicly traded company and we may experience increased costs after the spin-off.
          We have historically relied on Northrop Grumman for various financial, legal, administrative and other corporate services to support our operations. After the distribution, Northrop Grumman will continue to supply us certain of these services on a short-term transitional basis. However, we will be required to establish the necessary infrastructure and systems to supply these services on an ongoing basis. We may not be able to replace these services provided by Northrop Grumman in a timely manner or on terms and conditions, including cost, as favorable as those we receive from Northrop Grumman. Furthermore, following the spin-off, we will maintain our own banking relationships and sources of long-term funding.
          In addition, as a public entity, we will be subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act and requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”). These requirements may place a strain on our systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we will be required to maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. In order to maintain and improve the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, significant resources and management oversight will be required. We will be implementing additional procedures and processes for the purpose of addressing the standards and requirements applicable to public companies. These activities may divert management’s attention from other business concerns, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. We expect to incur additional annual expenses related to these steps and the reporting requirements of the SEC, including additional directors and officers liability insurance, director fees, transfer agent fees, increased salary expenses for the hiring of additional accounting, legal and administrative personnel, increased auditing and legal fees and other related expenses.
We do not have a recent operating history as an independent company and our historical financial information may not be a reliable indicator of our future results.
          The historical financial information we have included in this information statement has been derived from Northrop Grumman’s consolidated financial statements and does not necessarily reflect what our financial position, results of operations and cash flows would have been had we been a separate, stand-alone entity during the periods presented. Northrop Grumman did not account for us, and we were not operated, as a single stand-alone entity for the periods presented. In addition, the historical information is not necessarily indicative of what our results of operations, financial position and cash flows will be in the future. For example, following the spin-off, changes will occur in our cost structure, funding and operations, including changes in our tax structure, increased costs associated with reduced economies of scale and increased costs associated with becoming a public, stand-alone company. While we have been profitable as part of Northrop Grumman, we cannot assure you that as a stand-alone company our profits will continue at a similar level.
Our customers and prospective customers will need assurances that our financial stability on a stand-alone basis is sufficient to satisfy their requirements for doing or continuing to do business with them.
          Our customers and prospective customers will need assurances that our financial stability on a stand-alone basis is sufficient to satisfy their requirements for doing or continuing to do business with them. If our customers or prospective customers are not satisfied with our financial stability, it could have a material adverse effect on our ability to bid for and obtain or retain projects, our business, financial condition or results of operations.
The spin-off may expose us to potential liabilities arising out of state and federal fraudulent conveyance laws and legal dividend requirements.
          The spin-off is subject to review under various state and federal fraudulent conveyance laws. Under these laws, if a court in a lawsuit by an unpaid creditor or an entity vested with the power of such creditor (including without limitation a trustee or debtor-in-possession in a bankruptcy by us or Northrop Grumman or any of our respective subsidiaries) were to determine that Northrop Grumman or any of its subsidiaries did not receive fair consideration or reasonably equivalent

36


Table of Contents

value for distributing our common stock or taking other action as part of the spin-off, or that we or any of our subsidiaries did not receive fair consideration or reasonably equivalent value for incurring indebtedness, including the new debt incurred by us in connection with the spin-off, transferring assets or taking other action as part of the spin-off and, at the time of such action, we, Northrop Grumman or any of our respective subsidiaries (i) was insolvent or would be rendered insolvent, (ii) had reasonably small capital with which to carry on its business and all business in which it intended to engage or (iii) intended to incur, or believed it would incur, debts beyond its ability to repay such debts as they would mature, then such court could void the spin-off as a constructive fraudulent transfer. If such court made this determination, the court could impose a number of different remedies, including without limitation, voiding our liens and claims against Northrop Grumman, or providing Northrop Grumman with a claim for money damages against us in an amount equal to the difference between the consideration received by Northrop Grumman and the fair market value of our company at the time of the spin-off.
          The measure of insolvency for purposes of the fraudulent conveyance laws will vary depending on which jurisdiction’s law is applied. Generally, however, an entity would be considered insolvent if the present fair saleable value of its assets is less than (i) the amount of its liabilities (including contingent liabilities) or (ii) the amount that will be required to pay its probable liabilities on its existing debts as they become absolute and mature. No assurance can be given as to what standard a court would apply to determine insolvency or that a court would determine that we, Northrop Grumman or any of our respective subsidiaries were solvent at the time of or after giving effect to the spin-off, including the distribution of our common stock.
          The distribution by us to Northrop Grumman of our interests in NGSC in connection with the internal reorganization and the payment of future dividends, if any, to the holders of our common stock are also subject to review under state corporate distribution statutes. Under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”), a corporation may only pay dividends to its stockholders either (i) out of its surplus (net assets minus capital), or (ii) if there is no such surplus, out of its net profits for the fiscal year in which the dividend is declared and/or the preceding fiscal year. Although we intend to make the distribution to Northrop Grumman and pay future dividends, if any, to the holders of our common stock entirely from surplus, no assurance can be given that a court will not later determine that some or all of the distribution to Northrop Grumman or any such future dividends to the holders of our common stock were unlawful.
          In connection with the internal reorganization transactions, the Northrop Grumman board of directors expects to obtain opinions regarding the solvency of New NGC, Current NGC and us, as applicable. In addition, prior to the spin-off, the Northrop Grumman board of directors expects to obtain an opinion regarding our solvency and the solvency of Northrop Grumman and the permissibility of the spin-off and the distribution by us to Northrop Grumman under Section 170 of the DGCL. The Northrop Grumman board of directors and management believe that, in accordance with this opinion that is expected to be rendered in connection with the spin-off and the distribution by us of our interests in NGSC to Northrop Grumman, (i) Northrop Grumman and we each will be solvent at the time of the spin-off (including after the payment of such dividend and the spin-off), will be able to repay its debts as they mature following the spin-off and will have sufficient capital to carry on its businesses and (ii) the spin-off and such distribution will be made entirely out of surplus in accordance with Section 170 of the DGCL. There is no certainty, however, that a court would find this solvency opinion to be binding on the creditors of either us or Northrop Grumman, or that a court would reach the same conclusions set forth in such opinion in determining whether Northrop Grumman or we were insolvent at the time of, or after giving effect to, the spin-off, or whether lawful funds were available for the separation and the distribution to Northrop Grumman.
          Under the Separation and Distribution Agreement, from and after the spin-off, each of Northrop Grumman and we will be responsible for the debts, liabilities and other obligations related to the business or businesses which it owns and operates following the consummation of the spin-off. Although we do not expect to be liable for any such obligations not expressly assumed by us pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement, it is possible that a court would disregard the allocation agreed to between the parties, and require that we assume responsibility for obligations allocated to Northrop Grumman (for example, tax and/or environmental liabilities), particularly if Northrop Grumman were to refuse or were unable to pay or perform the subject allocated obligations. See “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Agreements with Northrop Grumman Related to the Spin-Off—Separation and Distribution Agreement.”
We may have been able to receive better terms from unaffiliated third parties than the terms we receive in our agreements with Northrop Grumman.
          The agreements related to the spin-off, including the Separation and Distribution Agreement, Employee Matters Agreement, Insurance Matters Agreement, Intellectual Property License Agreement, Litigation Management and Coordination Agreement, Tax Sharing Agreement, Transition Services Agreement and any other agreements, will be negotiated in the context of our separation from Northrop Grumman while we are still part of Northrop Grumman. Accordingly, these agreements may not reflect terms that would have resulted from arm’s-length negotiations among unaffiliated third parties. The terms of the agreements being negotiated in the context of our separation are related to,

37


Table of Contents

among other things, allocations of assets, liabilities, rights, indemnifications and other obligations among Northrop Grumman and us. We may have received better terms from third parties because third parties may have competed with each other to win our business. See “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Agreements with Northrop Grumman Related to the Spin-Off” for more detail.
Risks Relating to Our Common Stock
          You face the following risks in connection with ownership of our common stock:
There is no existing market for our common stock and we cannot be certain that an active trading market will develop or be sustained after the spin-off, and following the spin-off, our stock price may fluctuate significantly.
          There currently is no public market for our common stock. We intend to apply to list our common stock on the NYSE. See “Trading Market.” It is anticipated that before the distribution date for the spin-off, trading of shares of our common stock will begin on a “when-issued” basis and such trading will continue up to and including the distribution date. However, there can be no assurance that an active trading market for our common stock will develop as a result of the spin-off or be sustained in the future. The lack of an active market may make it more difficult for you to sell our common stock and could lead to the price of our common stock being depressed or more volatile. We cannot predict the prices at which our common stock may trade after the spin-off. The market price of our common stock may fluctuate widely, depending on many factors, some of which may be beyond our control, including:
    our business profile and market capitalization may not fit the investment objectives of some Northrop Grumman stockholders and, as a result, these Northrop Grumman stockholders may sell our shares after the distribution;
 
    actual or anticipated fluctuations in our operating results due to factors related to our business;
 
    success or failure of our business strategy;
 
    our quarterly or annual earnings, or those of other companies in our industry;
 
    our ability to obtain financing as needed;
 
    announcement by us or our competitors of significant new business awards;
 
    announcements by us or our competitors of significant acquisitions or dispositions;
 
    changes in accounting standards, policies, guidance, interpretations or principles;
 
    the failure of securities analysts to cover our common stock after the spin-off;
 
    changes in earnings estimates by securities analysts or our ability to meet those estimates;
 
    the operating and stock price performance of other comparable companies;
 
    investor perception of our company and the shipbuilding industry;
 
    natural or environmental disasters that investors believe may affect us;
 
    overall market fluctuations;
 
    fluctuations in the budget of the DoD;
 
    results from any material litigation or Government investigation;
 
    further reduction or rationalization by us or our competitors of the shipbuilding industrial base as a result of adverse changes to the DoD budget;
 
    changes in laws and regulations affecting our business; and
 
    general economic conditions and other external factors.
          Stock markets in general have experienced volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of a particular company. These broad market fluctuations could adversely affect the trading price of our common stock.

38


Table of Contents

Substantial sales of our common stock may occur in connection with the spin-off, which could cause the price of our common stock to decline.
          The shares of our common stock that Northrop Grumman distributes to its stockholders generally may be sold immediately in the public market. It is possible that some Northrop Grumman stockholders, which could include some of our larger stockholders, will sell our common stock received in the distribution if, for reasons such as our business profile or market capitalization as an independent company, we do not fit their investment objectives, or – in the case of index funds – we are not a participant in the index in which they are investing. The sales of significant amounts of our common stock or the perception in the market that this will occur may reduce the market price of our common stock.
We cannot assure you that we will pay dividends on our common stock, and our indebtedness could limit our ability to pay dividends on our common stock.
          We have not determined our dividend policy. Our dividend policy will be established by our board of directors based on our financial condition, results of operations and capital requirements, as well as applicable law, regulatory constraints, industry practice and other business considerations that our board of directors considers relevant. In addition, the terms of the agreements governing our new debt or debt that we may incur in the future may limit or prohibit the payments of dividends. For more information, see “Dividend Policy.” There can be no assurance that we will pay a dividend in the future or continue to pay any dividend if we do commence the payment of dividends. There can also be no assurance that the combined annual dividends on Northrop Grumman common stock and our common stock after the spin-off, if any, will be equal to the annual dividends on Northrop Grumman common stock prior to the spin-off.
          Additionally, indebtedness that we expect to incur in connection with the internal reorganization could have important consequences for holders of our common stock. If we cannot generate sufficient cash flow from operations to meet our debt-payment obligations, then our ability to pay dividends, if so determined by the board of directors, will be impaired and we may be required to attempt to restructure or refinance our debt, raise additional capital or take other actions such as selling assets, reducing or delaying capital expenditures or reducing our dividend. There can be no assurance, however, that any such actions could be effected on satisfactory terms, if at all, or would be permitted by the terms of our new debt or our other credit and contractual arrangements. In addition, the terms of the agreements governing new debt that we expect to incur prior to the spin-off or that we may incur in the future may limit or prohibit the payment of dividends.
Anti-takeover provisions in our organizational documents and Delaware law could delay or prevent a change in control.
          Prior to completion of the spin-off, we will adopt the Restated Certificate of Incorporation and the Restated Bylaws. Certain provisions of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation and the Restated Bylaws may delay or prevent a merger or acquisition that a stockholder may consider favorable. For example, the Restated Certificate of Incorporation and the Restated Bylaws provide for a classified board, require advance notice for stockholder proposals and nominations, place limitations on convening stockholder meetings and authorize our board of directors to issue one or more series of preferred stock. These provisions may also discourage acquisition proposals or delay or prevent a change in control, which could harm our stock price. Delaware law also imposes some restrictions on mergers and other business combinations between any holder of 15 percent or more of our outstanding common stock and us. See “Description of Capital Stock.”
          Under tax sharing arrangements, we will agree not to enter into any transaction involving an acquisition (including issuance) of New Ships common stock or any other transaction (or, to the extent we have the right to prohibit it, to permit any such transaction) that could cause the distribution or any of the internal reorganization transactions to be taxable to Northrop Grumman. We will also agree to indemnify Northrop Grumman for any tax resulting from any such transactions. Generally, Northrop Grumman will recognize taxable gain on the distribution if there are one or more acquisitions (including issuances) of our capital stock, directly or indirectly, representing 50 percent or more, measured by vote or value, of our then-outstanding capital stock, and the acquisitions or issuances are deemed to be part of a plan or series of related transactions that include the distribution. Any such shares of our common stock acquired, directly or indirectly, within two years before or after the distribution (with exceptions, including public trading by less-than-5 percent stockholders and certain compensatory stock issuances) will generally be presumed to be part of such a plan unless we can rebut that presumption. As a result, our obligations may discourage, delay or prevent a change of control of our company.

39


Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE ABOUT FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
          We have made forward-looking statements in this information statement, including in the sections entitled “Summary,” “Risk Factors,” “Questions and Answers About the Spin-Off,” “The Spin-Off,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Business,” that are based on our management’s beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available to our management. Forward-looking statements include the information concerning our possible or assumed future results of operations, business strategies, financing plans, competitive position, potential growth opportunities, potential operating performance improvements, benefits resulting from our separation from Northrop Grumman, the effects of competition and the effects of future legislation or regulations. Forward-looking statements include all statements that are not historical facts and can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as the words “believe,” “expect,” “plan,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “continue,” “may,” “might,” “should,” “could” or the negative of these terms or similar expressions.
          Forward-looking statements involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. You should not put undue reliance on any forward-looking statements in this information statement. We do not have any intention or obligation to update forward-looking statements after we distribute this information statement.
          The risk factors discussed in “Risk Factors” could cause our results to differ materially from those expressed in forward-looking statements. There may be other risks and uncertainties that we are unable to predict at this time or that we currently do not expect to have a material adverse effect on our business. Any such risks could cause our results to differ materially from those expressed in forward-looking statements.

40


Table of Contents

THE SPIN-OFF
Background
          On       , 20         , Northrop Grumman approved the spin-off of New Ships from Northrop Grumman, following which we will be an independent, publicly traded company. As part of the spin-off, Current NGC will complete an internal reorganization, which we refer to as the “internal reorganization,” which will result in:
    New NGC, a subsidiary of Current NGC, replacing Current NGC as the publicly traded holding company that directly and indirectly owns all of the capital stock of Current NGC and its subsidiaries, including our common stock;
 
    New NGC changing its name to “Northrop Grumman Corporation;”
 
    Us becoming the parent company of those Northrop Grumman subsidiaries that currently operate the shipbuilding business; and
 
    Current NGC becoming a direct, wholly owned non-operating subsidiary of New Ships and being renamed “Titan II Inc.”
          To complete the spin-off, Northrop Grumman will, following the internal reorganization, distribute to its stockholders all of the shares of our common stock. The distribution will occur on the distribution date, which is       , 20 . Each holder of Northrop Grumman common stock will receive       shares of our common stock for each share of Northrop Grumman common stock held on       , 20       , the record date. After completion of the spin-off:
    we will be an independent, publicly traded company, will own and operate the shipbuilding business and will own all of the stock of Current NGC; and
 
    New NGC, primarily through its subsidiary NGSC, will own and operate the aerospace systems, electronic systems, information systems and technical services businesses previously owned by and operated by Current NGC.
          Each holder of Northrop Grumman common stock will continue to hold his, her or its shares in Northrop Grumman. No vote of Northrop Grumman’s stockholders is required or is being sought in connection with the spin-off, and Northrop Grumman’s stockholders will not have any appraisal rights in connection with the spin-off, including the internal reorganization.
          The distribution of our common stock as described in this information statement is subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions. In addition, Northrop Grumman has the right not to complete the spin-off if, at any time prior to the distribution, the board of directors of Northrop Grumman determines, in its sole discretion, that the spin-off is not in the best interests of Northrop Grumman or its stockholders, or that market conditions are such that it is not advisable for us to separate from Northrop Grumman. For a more detailed description, see “—Conditions to the Spin-Off.”
Reasons for the Spin-Off
          Northrop Grumman’s board of directors has determined that the spin-off is in the best interests of Northrop Grumman and its stockholders because the spin-off will provide the following key benefits: (i) greater strategic focus of investment resources and each management’s efforts, (ii) enhanced customer focus, (iii) direct and differentiated access to capital markets and (iv) enhanced investor choices by offering investment opportunities in separate entities.
          Greater Strategic Focus of Financial Resources and Each Management’s Efforts. Northrop Grumman’s shipbuilding business represents a discrete portion of Northrop Grumman’s overall businesses. It has historically exhibited different financial and operating characteristics than Northrop Grumman’s other businesses. Northrop Grumman’s management believes that its shipbuilding business, on the one hand, and its other businesses, on the other hand, require inherently different strategies in order to maximize their long-term value. Consequently, Northrop Grumman has determined that its current structure may not be the most effective to design and implement the distinct strategies necessary to operate in a manner that maximizes the long-term value of each company.
          Both Northrop Grumman and we expect to have better use of management and financial resources as a result of having board and management teams solely focused on their respective businesses. The spin-off will allow us to better align management’s attention and resources to pursue opportunities in the shipbuilding market and to more actively manage our cost structure. Northrop Grumman will similarly benefit from its management’s ability to focus on the management and operation of its other businesses.

41


Table of Contents

          Enhanced Customer Focus. Both Northrop Grumman and we believe that, as a unified, commonly managed, stand-alone shipbuilding business, our management will be able to focus solely on the needs of our own customers (primarily the U.S. Navy), without dilution arising from a connection to a larger parent with tangential goals and incentives.
          Direct and Differentiated Access to Capital Markets. After the spin-off, we will no longer need to compete with Northrop Grumman’s other businesses for capital resources. The shipbuilding business has different financial and operating characteristics from Northrop Grumman’s other businesses. Both Northrop Grumman and we believe that direct and differentiated access to the capital markets will allow each of us to better optimize the amounts and terms of the capital needed for each of the respective businesses, aligning financial and operational characteristics with investor and market expectations. Northrop Grumman’s management also believes that, as a separate entity, we will have ready access to capital, because the shipbuilding business will attract investors who are interested in the characteristics of a long cycle, mature industrial business with heavy capital needs but with long-duration and highly-transparent cash flows.
          Enhanced Investor Choices by Offering Investment Opportunities in Separate Entities. After the spin-off, investors should be better able to evaluate the financial performances of Northrop Grumman and us, as well as our respective strategies within the context of our respective markets, thereby enhancing the likelihood that both entities will achieve appropriate market valuations. Northrop Grumman’s management and financial advisors believe that the investment characteristics of the shipbuilding business and Northrop Grumman’s other businesses may appeal to different types of investors. As a result of the spin-off, management of both companies should be able to implement goals and evaluate strategic opportunities in light of investor expectations within their respective specialties without undue attention to investor expectations in other specialties. In addition, each company should be able to focus its public relations efforts on cultivating its own separate identity.
Manner of Effecting the Spin-Off
          The general terms and conditions relating to the spin-off will be set forth in a Separation and Distribution Agreement between us and Northrop Grumman.
          Internal Reorganization
          Prior to the distribution, as described under “—Distribution of Shares of Our Common Stock,” and as part of the internal organization, Current NGC will complete a corporate reorganization, which we refer to as the “holding company reorganization,” to create a holding company structure. The holding company reorganization will be effected by action of the board of directors of Current NGC without a vote of Northrop Grumman’s stockholders pursuant to Section 251(g) of the DGCL. In accordance with Section 251(g) of the DGCL, Titan I Inc., a Delaware corporation and indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of New NGC, will merge with and into Current NGC, with Current NGC as the surviving corporation and an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of New NGC, the new holding company. At the effective time of that merger and in connection with the holding company reorganization, Current NGC will change its name from “Northrop Grumman Corporation” to “Titan II Inc.,” and New NGC will change its name to “Northrop Grumman Corporation.” In the holding company reorganization, all of the outstanding shares of capital stock of Current NGC will become the same number of shares of the same class of capital stock of New NGC. Outstanding options to acquire common stock of Current NGC will become options to acquire common stock of New NGC. The board of directors of New NGC immediately after completion of the holding company reorganization will be composed of the same persons who are on the board of directors of Current NGC immediately prior to the holding company reorganization.
          As part of the internal reorganization, through a series of internal transfers including the Contribution and the transfer to New NGC of all of the non-shipbuilding-related assets and liabilities of Current NGC, we will be the parent company of the Northrop Grumman subsidiaries that currently operate the shipbuilding business and Current NGC will be our direct, wholly owned subsidiary. After completion of the internal reorganization, Current NGC will have no material assets or liabilities other than Current NGC’s guarantees of our performance under certain of our contracts and certain of our indebtedness and insurance agreements related to NGSB (the “Current NGC Obligations”). We will enter into performance and indemnity agreements with Current NGC, pursuant to which we will agree to perform all of the Current NGC Obligations and indemnify Current NGC for any costs arising from such obligations. These indemnities do not relate to our relationship with Northrop Grumman. The diagrams below show the transaction structure, simplified for illustrative purposes only:

42


Table of Contents

           
           
 
 
       
 
The diagram below shows the current structure of Northrop Grumman:
    The diagram below shows the structure of Northrop Grumman after completion of the internal reorganization:  
 
 
       
 
(FLOW CHART)
    (FLOW CHART)  
 
 
       
 
 
       
           
          Distribution of Shares of Our Common Stock
          Under the Separation and Distribution Agreement, the distribution will be effective as of       , Eastern time, on          , 20     , the distribution date. As a result of the spin-off, on the distribution date, each holder of Northrop Grumman common stock will receive       shares of our common stock for each share of Northrop Grumman common stock that he, she or it owns. In order to receive shares of our common stock in the spin-off, a Northrop Grumman stockholder must be stockholder at the close of business of the NYSE on       , the record date.
          The diagram below shows the structure, simplified for illustrative purposes only, of Northrop Grumman and New Ships after completion of the spin-off:
(FLOW CHART)
          On the distribution date, Northrop Grumman will release the shares of our common stock to our distribution agent to distribute to Northrop Grumman stockholders. For most of these Northrop Grumman stockholders, our distribution agent will credit their shares of our common stock to book-entry accounts established to hold their shares of our common stock. Our distribution agent will send these stockholders, including any Northrop Grumman stockholder that holds physical share certificates of Northrop Grumman common stock and is the registered holder of such shares of Northrop Grumman common stock represented by those certificates on the record date, a statement reflecting their ownership of our common stock. Book-entry refers to a method of recording stock ownership in our records in which no physical certificates are used. For stockholders who own Northrop Grumman common stock through a broker or other nominee, their shares of our common stock will be credited to these stockholders’ accounts by the broker or other nominee. It is expected that it will take the distribution agent up to two weeks to electronically issue shares of our common stock to Northrop Grumman

43


Table of Contents

stockholders or their bank or brokerage firm by way of direct registration in book-entry form. Trading of our stock will not be affected by this delay in issuance by the distribution agent. As further discussed below, we will not issue fractional shares of our common stock in the distribution. Following the spin-off, stockholders whose shares are held in book-entry form may request that their shares of our common stock be transferred to a brokerage or other account at any time.
          Northrop Grumman stockholders will not be required to make any payment or surrender or exchange their shares of Northrop Grumman common stock or take any other action to receive their shares of our common stock. No vote of Northrop Grumman stockholders is required or sought in connection with the spin-off, including the internal reorganization, and Northrop Grumman stockholders have no appraisal rights in connection with the spin-off.
Treatment of Fractional Shares
          The distribution agent will not distribute any fractional shares of our common stock to Northrop Grumman stockholders. Instead, as soon as practicable on or after the distribution date, the distribution agent will aggregate fractional shares of our common stock held by holders of record into whole shares, sell them in the open market at the prevailing market prices and then distribute the aggregate sale proceeds ratably to Northrop Grumman stockholders who would otherwise have been entitled to receive fractional shares of our common stock. The amount of this payment will depend on the prices at which the distribution agent sells the aggregated fractional shares of our common stock in the open market shortly after the distribution date. We will be responsible for any payment of brokerage fees. The amount of these brokerage fees is not expected to be material to us. The receipt of cash in lieu of fractional shares of our common stock will generally result in a taxable gain or loss to the recipient stockholder. Each stockholder entitled to receive cash proceeds from these shares should consult his, her or its own tax advisor as to the stockholder’s particular circumstances. The tax consequences of the distribution are described in more detail under “—U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Spin-Off.”
          In addition, at the time of the distribution, the exercise price of each outstanding option to purchase Northrop Grumman stock held by our employees on the distribution date will be reduced to reflect the value of the distribution, which will be calculated using the equitable adjustment approach contained in the existing awards.
U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Spin-Off
          Northrop Grumman has received the IRS Ruling and will receive an opinion from the law firm of Ivins, Phillips & Barker substantially to the effect that, among other things, (i) the holding company reorganization, together with certain other internal reorganization transactions, will qualify for tax-free treatment, and (ii) the distribution will qualify under Section 355 of the Code as a tax-free spin-off to the holders of Northrop Grumman common stock (except with respect to cash received in lieu of fractional shares of our common stock) and will be tax-free to Northrop Grumman and New Ships. Assuming the holding company reorganization, together with certain other internal reorganization transactions, qualifies for tax-free treatment, and the distribution qualifies under Section 355 of the Code as tax-free:
          In the holding company reorganization:
    no gain or loss will be recognized by the holders of Northrop Grumman common stock upon their receipt of New NGC common stock in exchange for their Current NGC common stock in the holding company reorganization;
 
    the basis of New NGC common stock received in exchange for Current NGC common stock in the holding company reorganization will be equal to the basis of the Current NGC common stock surrendered in exchange therefore; and
 
    the holding period of New NGC common stock received in exchange for Current NGC stock in the holding company reorganization will include the period during which the stockholder held the Current NGC common stock, provided the Current NGC common stock is held as a capital asset on the date of the merger in the holding company reorganization.
          In the internal reorganization, neither we nor Northrop Grumman will recognize any taxable income, gain or loss.
          In the distribution:
    no gain or loss will be recognized by, and no amount will be included in the income of, holders of Northrop Grumman common stock upon their receipt of shares of our common stock in the distribution;
 
    the basis of Northrop Grumman common stock immediately before the distribution will be allocated between the Northrop Grumman common stock and our common stock received in the distribution, in proportion with relative fair market values at the time of the distribution;

44


Table of Contents

    the holding period of our common stock received by each Northrop Grumman stockholder will include the period during which the stockholder held the Northrop Grumman common stock on which the distribution is made, provided that the Northrop Grumman common stock is held as a capital asset on the distribution date;
 
    any cash received in lieu of fractional share interest in our common stock will give rise to taxable gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount of cash received and the tax basis allocable to the fractional share interests, determined as described above, and such gain will be capital gain or loss if the Northrop Grumman common stock on which the distribution is made is held as a capital asset on the distribution date; and
 
    no gain or loss will be recognized by Northrop Grumman upon the distribution of our common stock.
          U.S. Treasury regulations require certain stockholders that receive stock in a spin-off to attach to their respective U.S. Federal income tax returns, for the year in which the spin-off occurs, a detailed statement setting forth certain information relating to the spin-off. Shortly after the distribution, Northrop Grumman will provide stockholders who receive our common stock in the distribution with the information necessary to comply with that requirement, as well as information to help stockholders allocate their stock basis between their Northrop Grumman common stock and our common stock.
          The IRS Ruling is, and the opinion of counsel will be, conditioned on the truthfulness and completeness of certain factual statements and representations provided by Northrop Grumman and us. If those factual statements and representations are incomplete or untrue in any material respect, the IRS Ruling and opinion of counsel could become inoperative. Northrop Grumman and we have reviewed the statements of fact and representations on which the IRS Ruling is, and the opinion of counsel will be, based, and neither Northrop Grumman nor we are aware of any facts or circumstances that would cause any of the statements of fact or representations to be incomplete or untrue. Both Northrop Grumman and we have agreed to some restrictions on our future actions to provide further assurance that the distribution will qualify as a tax-free distribution under Section 355 of the Code.
          If the holding company reorganization does not qualify as a tax-free reorganization, taxable gain or loss would be recognized by each holder of Northrop Grumman stock. The amount of such gain or loss would be equal to the difference between the fair market value of such holder’s New NGC stock (including our stock received in the distribution) and such holder’s adjusted basis in his, her or its Current NGC stock. In addition, if the holding company reorganization does not qualify as a tax-free organization, taxable gain would be recognized by Northrop Grumman. The amount of such gain would result in a significant federal income tax liability to Northrop Grumman.
          If the distribution does not qualify under Section 355 of the Code, each holder of Northrop Grumman common stock receiving our common stock in the distribution would be treated as receiving a taxable distribution in an amount equal to the fair market value of our common stock received, which would result in:
    a taxable dividend to the extent of the stockholder’s pro rata share of Northrop Grumman’s current and accumulated earnings and profits;
 
    a reduction in the stockholder’s basis in Northrop Grumman common stock to the extent the amount received exceeds such stockholder’s share of earnings and profits;
 
    taxable gain from the exchange of Northrop Grumman common stock to the extent the amount received exceeds both the stockholder’s share of earnings and profits and the stockholder’s basis in Northrop Grumman common stock; and
 
    basis in our stock equal to its fair market value on the date of the distribution.
          Under certain circumstances Northrop Grumman would recognize taxable gain on the distribution. These circumstances would include the following:
    the distribution does not qualify as tax-free under Section 355 of the Code; and
 
    there are one or more acquisitions (including issuances) of either our stock or the stock of Northrop Grumman, representing 50 percent or more, measured by vote or value, of the then-outstanding stock of either corporation, and the acquisition or acquisitions are deemed to be part of a plan or series of related transactions that include the distribution. Any such acquisition of our stock within two years before or after the distribution (with exceptions, including public trading by less-than-5 percent stockholders and certain compensatory stock issuances) generally will be presumed to be part of such a plan unless we can rebut that presumption.
          The amount of such gain would result in a significant federal income tax liability to Northrop Grumman.

45


Table of Contents

          Furthermore, under certain circumstances, we would recognize taxable gain on portions of the internal reorganization. These circumstances would include the following:
    certain portions of the holding company reorganization or the internal reorganization do not qualify as a tax-free reorganization; and
 
    there are one or more acquisitions (including issuances and repurchases) of either our stock or the stock of Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman, representing 50 percent or more, measured by vote or value, of the then-outstanding stock of either corporation, and the acquisition or acquisitions are deemed to be part of a plan or series of related transactions that include the internal reorganization. Any such acquisition of our stock within two years before or after the distribution (with exceptions, including public trading by less-than-5 percent stockholders and certain compensatory stock issuances) generally will be presumed to be part of such a plan unless we can rebut that presumption.
          The amount of such gain would result in a significant federal income tax liability to us, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
          We will agree to indemnify Northrop Grumman for any tax liabilities of Northrop Grumman resulting from the holding company reorganization, the internal reorganization, and the distribution under certain circumstances. Our obligation to indemnify Northrop Grumman may discourage, delay or prevent a change of control of our company. In addition, under IRS regulations, each member of the Northrop Grumman consolidated tax return group at the time of the spin-off (including us and our subsidiaries) would be severally liable to the IRS for such tax liability. The resulting tax liability may have a material adverse effect on both our and Northrop Grumman’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
          The preceding summary of the anticipated U.S. Federal income tax consequences of the spin-off is for general information only. Northrop Grumman stockholders should consult their own tax advisors as to the specific tax consequences of the spin-off to them, including the application and effect of state, local or non-U.S. tax laws and of changes in applicable tax laws.
Results of the Spin-Off
          After the spin-off, we will be an independent, publicly traded company. Immediately following the spin-off, we expect to have approximately       holders of shares of our common stock and approximately       shares of our common stock outstanding, based on the number of stockholders and outstanding shares of Northrop Grumman common stock on       . The figures assume no exercise of outstanding options and exclude shares of Northrop Grumman common stock held directly or indirectly by Northrop Grumman, if any. The actual number of shares to be distributed will be determined on the record date and will reflect any exercise of Northrop Grumman options between the date the Northrop Grumman board of directors declares the dividend for the distribution and the record date for the distribution.
          For information regarding options to purchase shares of our common stock that will be outstanding after the distribution, see “Capitalization,” “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Agreements with Northrop Grumman Related to the
Spin-Off—Employee Matters Agreement” and “Management.”
          Before the spin-off, we will enter into several agreements with Northrop Grumman to effect the spin-off and provide a framework for our relationship with Northrop Grumman after the spin-off. These agreements will govern the relationship between us and Northrop Grumman after completion of the spin-off and provide for the allocation between us and Northrop Grumman of Northrop Grumman’s assets, liabilities and obligations. For a more detailed description of these agreements, see “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Agreements with Northrop Grumman Related to the Spin-Off.”
Trading Prior to the Distribution Date
          It is anticipated that, at least two trading days prior to the record date and continuing up to and including the distribution date, there will be a “when-issued” market in our common stock. When-issued trading refers to a sale or purchase made conditionally because the security has been authorized but not yet issued. The when-issued trading market will be a market for shares of our common stock that will be distributed to Northrop Grumman stockholders on the distribution date. Any Northrop Grumman stockholder that owns shares of Northrop Grumman common stock at the close of business on the record date will be entitled to shares of our common stock distributed in the spin-off. Northrop Grumman stockholders may trade this entitlement to shares of our common stock, without the shares of Northrop Grumman common stock they own, on the when-issued market. On the first trading day following the distribution date, we expect when-issued trading with respect to our common stock will end and “regular-way” trading will begin. See “Trading Market.”

46


Table of Contents

          Following the distribution date, we expect shares of our common stock to be listed on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “    .” We will announce the when-issued ticker symbol when and if it becomes available.
          It is also anticipated that, at least two trading days prior to the record date and continuing up to and including the distribution date, there will be two markets in Northrop Grumman common stock: a “regular-way” market and an “ex-distribution” market. Shares of Northrop Grumman common stock that trade on the regular-way market will trade with an entitlement to shares of our common stock distributed pursuant to the distribution. Shares that trade on the ex-distribution market will trade without an entitlement to shares of our common stock distributed pursuant to the distribution. Therefore, if shares of Northrop Grumman common stock are sold in the regular-way market up to and including the distribution date, the selling stockholder’s right to receive shares of our common stock in the distribution will be sold as well. However, if Northrop Grumman stockholders own shares of Northrop Grumman common stock at the close of business on the record date and sell those shares on the ex-distribution market up to and including the distribution date, the selling stockholders will still receive the shares of our common stock that they would otherwise receive pursuant to the distribution. See “Trading Market.”
Treatment of 401(k) Shares for Current and Former Employees
          Our Employees Invested in the Northrop Grumman Stock Fund of the Northrop Grumman 401(k)Plan.
          Our current and former employees who hold accounts in the Northrop Grumman 401(k) Plan on      , 20       will have their accounts transferred to the New Ships 401(k) Plan, as of      , 20      , including any shares of Northrop Grumman common stock held in the Northrop Grumman Stock Fund under the Northrop Grumman 401(k) Plan. On the distribution date, shares of our common stock, based on the distribution ratio for each share of Northrop Grumman common stock held in such employee’s Northrop Grumman stock fund account, will be included in a new New Ships stock fund account under the New Ships 401(k) Plan. However, in conformity with the fiduciary responsibility requirements of ERISA, remaining shares of Northrop Grumman common stock held in our employees’ Northrop Grumman stock fund accounts following the distribution will be disposed of and allocated to another investment alternative available under the New Ships 401(k) Plan when directed by participants, and any such shares remaining as of , 20       [one year from the distribution date] will be automatically disposed of and the proceeds invested in another such investment alternative (but this will not prohibit diversified, collectively managed investment alternatives available under the New Ships 401(k) Plan from holding Northrop Grumman common stock or prohibit employees who use self-directed accounts in the New Ships 401(k) Plan from investing their accounts in Northrop Grumman common stock).
          Northrop Grumman Employees Invested in the Northrop Grumman Stock Fund of the Northrop Grumman 401(k) Plan.
          Current and former Northrop Grumman employees who hold shares of Northrop Grumman common stock in their Northrop Grumman 401(k) Plan account as of the record date will receive shares of our common stock in the distribution. Our shares will be included in a new, temporary New Ships stock fund under the Northrop Grumman 401(k) Plan. In conformity with the fiduciary responsibility requirements of ERISA, remaining shares of our common stock held in the temporary New Ships stock fund following the distribution will be disposed of and allocated to another investment alternative available under the Northrop Grumman 401(k) Plan when directed by participants, and any such shares remaining as of , 20       [one year from the distribution date] will be automatically disposed of and the proceeds invested in another such investment alternative (but this will not prohibit diversified, collectively managed investment alternatives available under the Northrop Grumman 401(k) Plan from holding our common stock or prohibit employees who use self-directed accounts in the Northrop Grumman 401(k) Plan from investing their accounts in our common stock).
Incurrence of Debt
          It is anticipated that, prior to the spin-off, we will (i) receive the net proceeds from the New Ships Debt and make the Contribution and (ii) enter into the New Ships Revolving Credit Facility, all on terms acceptable to Northrop Grumman.
Conditions to the Spin-Off
          We expect that the spin-off will be effective as of      , Eastern time, on      , 20 , the distribution date, provided that the following conditions shall have been satisfied or waived by Northrop Grumman:
    the board of directors of Northrop Grumman shall have authorized and approved the spin-off and not withdrawn such authorization and approval, and the New NGC board shall have declared the dividend of our common stock to Northrop Grumman stockholders;
 
    the Separation and Distribution Agreement and each ancillary agreement contemplated by the Separation and Distribution Agreement shall have been executed by each party thereto;

47


Table of Contents

    the SEC shall have declared effective our registration statement on Form 10, of which this information statement is a part, under the Exchange Act, and no stop order suspending the effectiveness of the registration statement shall be in effect, and no proceedings for such shall be pending before or threatened by the SEC;
 
    our common stock shall have been accepted for listing on the NYSE or another national securities exchange approved by Northrop Grumman, subject to official notice of issuance;
 
    the internal reorganization (as described in “—Background”) shall have been completed;
 
    Northrop Grumman shall have received the IRS Ruling and an opinion of its tax counsel, which shall remain in full force and effect, that the spin-off will not result in the recognition, for U.S. Federal income tax purposes, of gain or loss to Northrop Grumman or its stockholders, except to the extent of cash received in lieu of fractional shares;
 
    New Ships shall have received (i) the net proceeds from the New Ships Debt and made the Contribution and (ii) entered into the New Ships Revolving Credit Facility, all on terms and conditions acceptable to Northrop Grumman;
 
    no order, injunction or decree pending, threatened or issued by any governmental authority of competent jurisdiction or other legal restraint or prohibition preventing consummation of the distribution shall be in effect, and no other event outside the control of Northrop Grumman shall have occurred or failed to occur that prevents the consummation of the distribution;
 
    no other events or developments shall have occurred prior to the distribution date that, in the judgment of the board of directors of Northrop Grumman, would result in the spin-off having a material adverse effect on Northrop Grumman or its stockholders;
 
    prior to the distribution date, this information statement shall have been mailed to the holders of Northrop Grumman common stock as of the record date;
 
    our current directors shall have duly elected the individuals listed as members of our post-distribution board of directors in this information statement, and such individuals shall be the members of our board of directors immediately after the distribution;
 
    prior to the distribution, Northrop Grumman shall have delivered to us resignations from those New Ships positions, effective as of immediately after the distribution, of each individual who will be an employee of Northrop Grumman after the distribution and who is our officer or director prior to the distribution; and
 
    immediately prior to the distribution date, the Restated Certificate of Incorporation and the Restated Bylaws, each in substantially the form filed as an exhibit to the registration statement on Form 10 of which this information statement is a part, shall be in effect.
          The fulfillment of the foregoing conditions will not create any obligation on Northrop Grumman’s part to effect the spin-off. We are not aware of any material federal or state regulatory requirements that must be complied with or any material approvals that must be obtained, other than compliance with SEC rules and regulations and the declaration of effectiveness of the registration statement on Form 10 by the SEC, in connection with the distribution. Northrop Grumman has the right not to complete the spin-off if, at any time prior to the distribution, the board of directors of Northrop Grumman determines, in its sole discretion, that the spin-off is not in the best interests of Northrop Grumman or its stockholders or that market conditions are such that it is not advisable for us to separate from Northrop Grumman.
Reason for Furnishing this Information Statement
          This information statement is being furnished solely to provide information to Northrop Grumman’s stockholders that are entitled to receive shares of our common stock in the spin-off. This information statement is not, and is not to be construed as, an inducement or encouragement to buy, hold or sell any of our securities. We believe that the information in this information statement is accurate as of the date set forth on the cover. Changes may occur after that date and neither Northrop Grumman nor we undertake any obligation to update the information except in the normal course of our respective public disclosure obligations.

48


Table of Contents

TRADING MARKET
Market for Our Common Stock
          There has been no public market for our common stock. An active trading market may not develop or may not be sustained. We anticipate that trading of our common stock will commence on a “when-issued” basis at least two trading days prior to the record date and continue through the distribution date. When-issued trading refers to a sale or purchase made conditionally because the security has been authorized but not yet issued. When-issued trades generally settle within four trading days after the distribution date. If you own shares of Northrop Grumman common stock at the close of business on the record date, you will be entitled to shares of our common stock distributed pursuant to the spin-off. You may trade this entitlement to shares of our common stock, without the shares of Northrop Grumman common stock you own, on the when-issued market. On the first trading day following the distribution date, any when-issued trading with respect to our common stock will end and “regular-way” trading will begin. We intend to list our common stock on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “      .” We will announce our when-issued trading symbol when and if it becomes available.
          It is also anticipated that, at least two trading days prior to the record date and continuing up to and including the distribution date, there will be two markets in Northrop Grumman common stock: a “regular-way” market and an “ex-distribution” market. Shares of Northrop Grumman common stock that trade on the regular-way market will trade with an entitlement to shares of our common stock distributed pursuant to the distribution. Shares that trade on the ex-distribution market will trade without an entitlement to shares of our common stock distributed pursuant to the distribution. Therefore, if you sell shares of Northrop Grumman common stock in the regular-way market up to and including the distribution date, you will be selling your right to receive shares of our common stock in the distribution. However, if you own shares of Northrop Grumman common stock at the close of business on the record date and sell those shares on the ex-distribution market up to and including the distribution date, you will still receive the shares of our common stock that you would otherwise receive pursuant to the distribution.
          We cannot predict the prices at which our common stock may trade before the spin-off on a “when-issued” basis or after the spin-off. Those prices will be determined by the marketplace. Prices at which trading in our common stock occurs may fluctuate significantly. Those prices may be influenced by many factors, including anticipated or actual fluctuations in our operating results or those of other companies in our industry, investor perception of our company and the shipbuilding industry, market fluctuations and general economic conditions. In addition, the stock market in general has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected the performance of many stocks and that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. These are just some factors that may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. See “Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Common Stock.”
Transferability of Shares of Our Common Stock
          On    , 20    , Northrop Grumman had         shares of its common stock issued and outstanding. Based on this number, we expect that upon completion of the spin-off, we will have         shares of common stock issued and outstanding. The shares of our common stock that you will receive in the distribution will be freely transferable, unless you are considered an “affiliate” of ours under Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). Persons who can be considered our affiliates after the spin-off generally include individuals or entities that directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, us, and may include certain of our officers and directors. As of the distribution date, we estimate that our directors and officers will beneficially own    shares of our common stock. In addition, individuals who are affiliates of Northrop Grumman on the distribution date may be deemed to be affiliates of ours. Our affiliates may sell shares of our common stock received in the distribution only:
    under a registration statement that the SEC has declared effective under the Securities Act; or
 
    under an exemption from registration under the Securities Act, such as the exemption afforded by Rule 144.
          In general, under Rule 144 as currently in effect, an affiliate will be entitled to sell, within any three-month period commencing 90 days after the date the registration statement, of which this information statement is a part, is declared effective, a number of shares of our common stock that does not exceed the greater of:
    1.0 percent of our common stock then outstanding; or
 
    the average weekly trading volume of our common stock on the NYSE during the four calendar weeks preceding the filing of a notice on Form 144 with respect to the sale.
          Sales under Rule 144 are also subject to restrictions relating to manner of sale and the availability of current public information about us.

49


Table of Contents

          In the future, we may adopt new stock option and other equity-based award plans and issue options to purchase shares of our common stock and other stock-based awards. We currently expect to file a registration statement under the Securities Act to register shares to be issued under these stock plans. Shares issued pursuant to awards after the effective date of the registration statement, other than shares issued to affiliates, generally will be freely tradable without further registration under the Securities Act.
          Except for our common stock distributed in the distribution, none of our equity securities will be outstanding on or immediately after the spin-off and there are no registration rights agreements existing with respect to our common stock.

50


Table of Contents

DIVIDEND POLICY
          We have not determined our dividend policy. Our dividend policy will be established by our board of directors based on our financial condition, results of operations and capital requirements, as well as applicable law, regulatory constraints, industry practice and other business considerations that our board of directors considers relevant. In addition, the terms of the agreements governing our new debt or debt that we may incur in the future may limit or prohibit the payments of dividends. There can be no assurance that we will pay a dividend in the future or continue to pay any dividend if we do commence the payment of dividends. There can also be no assurance that the combined annual dividends on Northrop Grumman common stock and our common stock after the spin-off, if any, will be equal to the annual dividends on Northrop Grumman common stock prior to the spin-off.

51


Table of Contents

CAPITALIZATION
          The following table presents NGSB’s historical capitalization at June 30, 2010 and our pro forma capitalization at that date reflecting the spin-off and the related transactions and events described in the notes to our unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated balance sheet as if the spin-off and the related transactions and events, including our financing transaction, had occurred on June 30, 2010. The capitalization table below should be read together with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and NGSB’s historical consolidated financial statements, our unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial statements and the notes to those financial statements included elsewhere in this information statement.
          We are providing the capitalization table below for informational purposes only. It should not be construed to be indicative of our capitalization or financial condition had the spin-off and the related transactions and events been completed on the date assumed. The capitalization table below may not reflect the capitalization or financial condition that would have resulted had we been operated as a separate, independent entity at that date and is not necessarily indicative of our future capitalization or financial condition.
                 
    As of June 30, 2010
            Pro
    Historical   Forma
(in millions)   (unaudited)
 
               
Cash and Cash Equivalents(1)
    $—     $    
 
               
Capitalization:
               
 
               
Liabilities
               
Total current liabilities
    1,908          
Long-term debt
    283          
Other post-retirement plan liabilities
    511          
Pension plan liabilities
    412          
Workers’ compensation liabilities
    267          
Deferred tax liabilities
    120          
Other long-term liabilities
    67          
 
               
Equity
               
Common stock ($1.00 par value)
             
Preferred stock (authorized but unissued, par value $1.00)
             
Parent’s equity in unit(1)
    2,080        
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
    (505 )      
 
               
 
               
Total capitalization
    $5,143     $    
 
               
 
(1)   Historically, cash received by us has been transferred to Northrop Grumman, and Northrop Grumman has funded our disbursement accounts on an as-needed basis. The net effect of transfers of cash to and from the Northrop Grumman cash management accounts are reflected in the parent’s equity in unit account in the consolidated statements of financial position.

52


Table of Contents

SELECTED HISTORICAL CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL AND OTHER DATA
          The following table presents the selected historical condensed consolidated financial data for NGSB. The condensed consolidated financial data set forth below for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 is derived from NGSB’s audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this information statement. The condensed consolidated financial data for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 is derived from NGSB’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this information statement. The condensed consolidated financial data as of and for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 is derived from NGSB’s unaudited consolidated financial statements that are not included in this information statement. The unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the same basis as the audited consolidated financial statements and, in the opinion of our management include all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the information set forth herein.
          The selected historical condensed consolidated financial and other data presented below should be read in conjunction with NGSB’s consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes and “Capitalization” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included elsewhere in this information statement. NGSB’s condensed consolidated financial data may not be indicative of our future performance and does not necessarily reflect what our financial position and results of operations would have been had we been operating as an independent, publicly traded company during the periods presented, including changes that will occur in our operations and capitalization as a result of the spin-off from Northrop Grumman. See “Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements” for a further description of the anticipated changes.
                                                         
    (Six months ended)   (Year ended)
    June 30   December 31
    2010   2009   2009   2008   2007   2006   2005
(in millions)                                                        
 
                                                       
Sales and service revenues
    $3,322       $2,954       $6,292       $6,189       $5,692       $5,319       $5,761  
Goodwill impairment
                      2,490                    
Operating income (loss)
    67       64       211       (2,354 )     447       331       231  
Net earnings (loss)
    30       29       124       (2,420 )     276       194       149  
Total assets
    5,143               5,001       4,760       7,658       7,644       7,750  
Long-term debt
    283               283       283       283       283       83  
Total long-term obligations
    1,660               1,632       1,761       1,790       1,784       1,223  
Free cash flow (1)
    (82 )     (209 )     (269 )     121       364       164       109  
 
                                         
 
(1)   Free cash flow is a non-GAAP financial measure and represents cash from operating activities less capital expenditure. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Free Cash Flow” for more information on this measure.

53


Table of Contents

UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
          The following table presents our unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial data, reflecting adjustments to NGSB’s condensed consolidated financial data for the year ended December 31, 2009 and the six months ended June 30, 2010. NGSB’s condensed consolidated financial data for the year ended December 31, 2009 is derived from NGSB’s audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this information statement. NGSB’s condensed consolidated financial data for the six months ended June 30, 2010 is derived from NGSB’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this information statement. NGSB’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the same basis as its audited consolidated financial statements and, in the opinion of our management, include all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the information set forth herein.
          The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial data for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and the year ended December 31, 2009 have been prepared to reflect the spin-off, including: (i) the distribution of New Ships common stock by Northrop Grumman to its stockholders; and (ii) the incurrence of $ of the New Ships Debt by New Ships prior to completion of the spin-off and the making of the Contribution. The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated statement of income data presented for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and the year ended December 31, 2009 assumes the spin-off occurred on January 1, 2009, the first day of fiscal year 2009. The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated balance sheet data assumes the spin-off occurred on June 30, 2010. The assumptions used and pro forma adjustments derived from such assumptions are based on currently available information and we believe such assumptions are reasonable under the circumstances.
          The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial statements are not necessarily indicative of our results of operations or financial condition had the distribution and our anticipated post-spin-off capital structure been completed on the dates assumed. Also, they may not reflect the results of operations or financial condition which would have resulted had we been operating as an independent, publicly traded company during such periods. In addition, they are not necessarily indicative of our future results of operations or financial condition.

54


Table of Contents

New Ships
Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Income Statement
                         
    Year ended December 31, 2009
            Pro Forma      
    Historical   Adjustments   Pro Forma
(in millions)                        
 
                       
Statement of Operations Data:
                       
 
                       
Sales and service revenues
    $6,292     $       $    
Cost of sales and service revenues
    6,081                  
 
           
Operating income (loss)
    211                  
Other (expense) income
                       
Interest expense
    (36 )                
Other, net
    1                  
 
           
Earnings (loss) before income taxes
    176                  
Federal income taxes
    52                  
 
           
Net earnings (loss)
    $124     $       $    
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax
    86                  
 
           
Comprehensive income (loss)
    $210     $       $    
 
           
Pro forma earnings per share from continuing operations
                       
Basic
                       
Diluted
                       
Pro forma weighted-average shares outstanding
                       
Basic
                       
Diluted
                       
See Notes to Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

55


Table of Contents

New Ships
Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Income Statement
                         
    Six months ended June 30, 2010
            Pro Forma      
    Historical   Adjustments   Pro Forma
(in millions)                        
 
                       
Statement of Operations Data:
                       
 
                       
Sales and service revenues
    $3,322     $       $    
Cost of sales and service revenues
    3,255         [A]        
 
           
Operating income
    67                  
Other expense
                       
Interest expense
    (20 )       [B]        
 
           
Earnings before income taxes
    47                  
Federal income taxes
    17         [A]        
 
           
Net earnings
    $30     $       $    
Other comprehensive income, net of tax
    26                  
 
           
Comprehensive income
    $56     $       $    
 
           
Pro forma earnings per share from continuing operations
                       
Basic
                       
Diluted
                       
Pro forma weighted-average shares outstanding
                       
Basic
                       
Diluted
                       
See Notes to Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

56


Table of Contents

New Ships
Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet
                         
    June 30, 2010
            Pro Forma      
    Historical   Adjustments   Pro Forma
(in millions)                        
 
                       
Balance Sheet Data:
                       
 
                       
Assets
                       
Current assets
                       
Accounts receivable, net
    $712     $       $    
Inventoried costs, net
    280                  
Deferred income taxes
    293                  
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
    27                  
 
           
Total current assets
    1,312                  
Property, plant and equipment, net
    1,934                  
Other assets
                       
Goodwill
    1,134                  
Other purchased intangibles, net of accumulated amortization
    596                  
Pension plan asset
    112                  
Miscellaneous other assets
    55                  
 
           
Total other assets
    1,897                  
 
           
Total assets
    $5,143     $       $    
 
           
 
                       
Liabilities and equity
                       
Current liabilities
                       
Notes payable to parent
    537         [D]        
Trade accounts payable
    250         [C]        
Current portion of workers’ compensation liabilities
    255                  
Accrued interest on notes payable to parent
    225         [D]        
Current portion of post-retirement plan liabilities
    175                  
Accrued employees’ compensation
    175                  
Provision for contract losses
    86                  
Advance payments and billings in excess of costs incurred
    39                  
Other current liabilities
    166                  
 
           
Total current liabilities
    1,908                  
Long-term debt
    283         [C]        
Other post-retirement plan liabilities
    511                  
Pension plan liabilities
    412                  
Workers’ compensation liabilities
    267                  
Deferred tax liabilities
    120                  
Other long-term liabilities
    67                  
 
           
Total liabilities
    3,568                  
 
                       
Common stock (par value $1.00)
            [D]        
Parent’s equity in unit
    2,080         [D]        
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
    (505 )                
 
           
Total liabilities and equity
    $5,143     $       $    
 
           
See Notes to Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

57


Table of Contents

Notes to Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
[A]     The adjustment to Federal income taxes represents the tax effect of the pro forma adjustment impacting Earnings (loss) before income taxes discussed in [B] below, calculated using the U.S. effective tax rate of 35 percent, for the six months ended June 30, 2010.
 
[B]     The adjustment to Interest expense reflects New Ships’ issuance of debt in 2010 as described in Note [C] below.
 
[C]     The adjustment to Trade accounts payable and Long-term debt reflects the New Ships Debt and the Contribution.
 
[D]     The adjustment to Notes payable to parent, Accrued interest on notes payable to parent, Common stock and Parent’s equity in unit represent the recapitalization of New Ships in which our common stock held by Northrop Grumman will be converted into approximately            million shares of common stock. In connection with this recapitalization, the amount of Northrop Grumman’s net investment in New Ships, including intercompany debt which was recorded as Notes payable to parent in our consolidated statement of financial position, was reclassified to Additional paid-in capital.

58


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
          You should read the following discussion of our results of operations and financial condition together with the audited and unaudited historical consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included elsewhere in this information statement as well as the discussion in the section of this information statement entitled “Business.” This discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. The forward-looking statements are not historical facts, but rather are based on current expectations, estimates, assumptions and projections about our industry, business and future financial results. Our actual results could differ materially from the results contemplated by these forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, including those discussed in the sections of this information statement entitled “Risk Factors” and “Special Note About Forward-Looking Statements.”
          The consolidated financial statements, which are discussed below, reflect the historical financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., which will be our wholly owned subsidiary at the time of the distribution. The financial information discussed below and included in this information statement, however, may not necessarily reflect what our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows would have been had we been a stand alone company during the periods presented or what our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows may be in the future.
Overview
          The Spin-Off
          On    , 20    , Northrop Grumman approved the spin-off of New Ships from Northrop Grumman, following which we will be an independent, publicly traded company. As part of the spin-off, Northrop Grumman will complete an internal reorganization, as described in “The Spin-Off—Background.” To complete the spin-off, Northrop Grumman will, following the internal reorganization, distribute to its stockholders all of the shares of our common stock. After completion of the spin-off we will be an independent, publicly traded company and will own and operate the Northrop Grumman shipbuilding business. We also expect to enter into a series of agreements with Northrop Grumman, including the Separation and Distribution Agreement and other agreements, which will govern the relationship between us and Northrop Grumman after completion of the spin-off and provide for the allocation between us and Northrop Grumman of various assets, liabilities and obligations (including employee benefits, intellectual property, insurance and tax-related assets and liabilities). These agreements are described in “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Agreements with Northrop Grumman Related to the Spin-Off.” Consummation of the spin-off is subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions, as described in “The Spin-Off—Conditions to the Spin-Off.”
          Our Business
          Our business is organized into two operating segments, Gulf Coast and Newport News, which also represent our reportable segments. Through our Gulf Coast shipyards, we are the sole supplier and builder of amphibious assault and expeditionary ships to the U.S. Navy, the sole builder of National Security Cutters for the U.S. Coast Guard, and one of only two companies that builds the U.S. Navy’s current fleet of DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Through our Newport News shipyard, we are the nation’s sole industrial designer, builder, and refueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and one of only two companies currently capable of designing and building nuclear-powered submarines for the U.S. Navy. We build more ships, in more ship types and classes, than any other U.S. naval shipbuilder. We are also one of the nation’s leading full-service providers for the design, engineering, construction, and life cycle support of major surface ship programs for the U.S. Navy. As prime contractor, principal subcontractor, team member or partner, we participate in many high-priority defense technology programs in the United States. We conduct most of our business with the U.S. Government, principally the Department of Defense.
Factors Affecting Our Results of Operations
          Our operating results are primarily affected by the following factors:
          Contracts
          We generate the majority of our business from long-term government contracts for design, production and support activities. Government contracts typically include the following cost elements: direct material, labor and subcontracting costs, and certain indirect costs including allowable general and administrative costs. Unless otherwise specified in a contract, costs billed to contracts with the U.S. Government are determined under the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) and Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) regulations as allowable and allocable costs. Examples of costs incurred by us and not billed to the U.S. Government in accordance with the requirements of the FAR

59


Table of Contents

and CAS regulations include, but are not limited to, certain legal costs, lobbying costs, charitable donations, interest expense and advertising costs.
          We monitor our policies and procedures with respect to our contracts on a regular basis to ensure consistent application under similar terms and conditions as well as compliance with all applicable government regulations. In addition, costs incurred and allocated to contracts with the U.S. Government are routinely audited by the Defense Contract Audit Agency.
          Our long-term contracts typically fall into one of two broad categories:
          Flexibly Priced Contracts – Includes both cost-type and fixed-price incentive contracts. Cost-type contracts provide for reimbursement of the contractor’s allowable costs incurred plus a fee that represents profit. Cost-type contracts generally require that the contractor use its reasonable efforts to accomplish the scope of the work within some specified time and some stated dollar limitation. Fixed-price incentive contracts also provide for reimbursement of the contractor’s allowable costs, but are subject to a cost-share limit which affects profitability. Fixed-price incentive contracts effectively become firm fixed-price contracts once the cost-share limit is reached.
          Firm Fixed-Price Contracts – A firm fixed-price contract is a contract in which the specified scope of work is agreed to for a price that is pre-determined by bid or negotiation, and not generally subject to adjustment regardless of costs incurred by the contractor. Time-and-materials contracts are considered firm fixed-price contracts as they specify a fixed hourly rate for each labor hour charged.
          Approximately 98 percent of our 2009 revenue was generated by flexibly priced contracts, with the remaining 2 percent from firm fixed-price arrangements. Substantially all of our revenue for 2009 was derived from the U.S. Government.
          Contract Fees – Negotiated contract fee structures for both flexibly priced and fixed-price contracts include, but are not limited to: fixed-fee amounts, cost sharing arrangements to reward or penalize for either under or over cost target performance, positive award fees and negative penalty arrangements. Profit margins may vary materially depending on the negotiated contract fee arrangements, percentage-of-completion of the contract, the achievement of performance objectives, and the stage of performance at which the right to receive fees, particularly under incentive and award fee contracts, is finally determined.
          Award Fees – Certain contracts contain provisions consisting of award fees based on performance criteria such as cost, schedule, quality and technical performance. Award fees are determined and earned based on an evaluation by the customer of our performance against such negotiated criteria. Fees that can be reasonably assured and reasonably estimated are recorded over the performance period of the contract.
          Impacts from Hurricanes
          In August 2005, our shipyards in Louisiana and Mississippi sustained significant windstorm damage as a result of Hurricane Katrina, causing work and production delays. We incurred costs to replace or repair and improve destroyed and damaged assets, suffered losses under our contracts and incurred substantial costs to clean up and recover our operations. We invested significant capital to harden, protect and modernize our Pascagoula facilities, and to ensure the shipyard’s robustness. In 2008, as a result of Hurricane Gustav, our Gulf Coast shipyards experienced a shut-down for several days and a resulting minor delay in ship construction throughout the yards; however, the storm caused no significant physical damage to the yards, we believe in part due to our successful hardening and improvement after Hurricane Katrina. Also in 2008, Hurricane Ike severely impacted a subcontractor’s operations in Texas. The subcontractor produced compartments for two of the LPD amphibious transport dock ships under construction at the Gulf Coast shipyards. As a result of the delays and cost growth caused by the subcontractor’s production delays, our operating income was reduced during the second half of 2008.
          Recent Developments in U.S. Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Pension Recovery Rules
          A substantial portion of our current and retired employee population is covered by pension plans, the costs of which are dependent upon various assumptions, including estimates of rates of return on benefit-related assets, discount rates for future payment obligations, rates of future cost growth and trends for future costs. In addition, funding requirements for benefit obligations of our pension plans are subject to legislative and other government regulatory actions. For example, due to government regulations, pension plan cost recoveries under our government contracts may occur in different periods from when those pension costs are accrued for financial statement purposes or when pension funding is made. Timing differences between pension costs accrued for financial statement purposes or when pension funding occurs compared to when such costs are recoverable as allowable costs under our government contracts could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow from operations. See “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 16.”

60


Table of Contents

          In addition, on May 10, 2010, the U.S. Government CAS Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) that, if adopted, would provide a framework to partially harmonize the CAS rules with the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (“PPA”) funding requirements. The NPRM would “harmonize” by partially mitigating the mismatch between CAS costs and PPA-amended ERISA minimum funding requirements. The NPRM results in an acceleration of allowable CAS pension costs over the next five years as compared with our current CAS pension costs. Until the final rule is published, and to the extent that the final rule does not completely eliminate mismatches between ERISA funding requirements and CAS pension costs, government contractors maintaining defined benefit pension plans will continue to experience a timing mismatch between required contributions and pension expenses recoverable under CAS. The CAS Board is expected to issue a final rule in late 2010. Depending on the effective date, the final rule will likely apply to our contracts starting in 2011. We anticipate that government contractors will be entitled to an equitable adjustment for any additional CAS contract costs resulting from the final rule.
Consolidated Operating Results
          Selected financial highlights are presented in the table below:
                                         
    Six months ended June 30   Year ended December 31  
 $ in millions   2010   2009   2009     2008     2007  
   
 Sales and service revenues
  $ 3,322       $  2,954     $ 6,292       $   6,189       $  5,692  
 Cost of sales and service revenues
    2,940       2,595       5,442       5,489       4,604  
 Corporate home office and general and administrative expenses
    315       295       639       564       641  
 Goodwill impairment
    -       -       -       2,490       -  
 Operating income (loss)
    67       64       211       (2,354)       447  
 Interest expense
    20       22       36       40       42  
 Other, net
    -       -       1       -       6  
 Federal income taxes
    17       13       52       26       135  
 Net earnings (loss)
    30       29       124       (2,420)       276  
 Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities
    (22)       (125)       (88)       339       610  
   
          Operating Performance Assessment and Reporting
          We manage and assess the performance of our businesses based on our performance on individual contracts and programs obtained generally from government organizations using the financial measures referred to below, with consideration given to the Critical Accounting Policies, Estimates, and Judgments described in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Our portfolio of long-term contracts is largely flexibly-priced, which means that sales tend to fluctuate in concert with costs across our large portfolio of active contracts, with operating income being a critical measure of operational performance. Due to FAR rules that govern our business, most types of costs are allowable, and we do not focus on individual cost groupings (such as cost of sales or general and administrative costs) as much as we do on total contract costs, which are a key factor in determining contract operating income. As a result, in evaluating our operating performance, we look primarily at changes in sales and service revenues, and operating income, including the effects of significant changes in operating income as a result of changes in contract estimates and the use of the cumulative catch-up method of accounting in accordance with GAAP. Unusual fluctuations in operating performance driven by changes in a specific cost element across multiple contracts, however, are described in our analysis.
          Sales and Service Revenues
          Sales and service revenues consist of the following:
                                         
    Six months ended June 30   Year ended December 31
 $ in millions   2010     2009     2009     2008     2007  
 
 Product sales
  $  2,886     2,351     $  5,046     5,207     4,910  
 Service revenues
    436       603       1,246       982       782  
 
 Total sales and service revenues
  $  3,322     2,954     $  6,292     6,189     5,692  
 
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Product sales for the six months ended June 30, 2010 increased $535 million, or 23 percent, from the same period in 2009. The increase is primarily due to higher sales volume in the LPD and LHA expeditionary warfare programs and on the CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier construction program. These increases were partially offset by lower sales from LHD-8 USS Makin Island and CVN-77 USS George H.W. Bush, which were delivered in 2009. Additionally, during the second quarter of 2010 we announced the wind down of our shipbuilding operations at our Avondale facility in 2013 (see “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)—

61


Table of Contents

Note 2”) and reduced product revenues by $115 million to reflect revised estimates to complete LPD-23 and LPD-25. In the first half of 2009, we reduced product revenues by $132 million to reflect revised estimates to complete the LPD-class ships and LHA-6 America.
          Service revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2010 decreased $167 million, or 28 percent, from the same period in 2009. The decrease is primarily due to the completion of the CVN-65 USS Enterprise Extended Dry-docking Selected Restricted Availability (“EDSRA”) early in the second quarter of 2010.
          2009 – Product sales decreased $161 million, or 3 percent, from 2008. The decrease was primarily due to the delivery of the aircraft carrier CVN-77 USS George H.W. Bush, the expeditionary ship LHD-8 USS Makin Island, and the surface combatant DDG-105 USS Dewey, all of which occurred in the second quarter of 2009. The lower volume associated with these ship deliveries during the year was partially offset by higher sales on the construction of SSN-774 Virginia-class submarines and production ramp-ups in the LPD program.
          Service revenues increased $264 million, or 27 percent, from 2008. The increase was primarily due to higher volume on the CVN-65 USS Enterprise EDSRA and Post-Shakedown Availabilities on the CVN-77 USS George H.W. Bush and CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson.
          2008 – Product sales increased $297 million, or 6 percent, from 2007. The increase was primarily due to higher volume from the construction of DDG-51 and DDG-1000 surface combatants, SSN-774 Virginia-class submarines, and the aircraft carrier CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford. These increases were partially offset by lower sales on the LHD-8 construction program, which incurred a negative contract adjustment in the first quarter of 2008, as well as the impact of Hurricanes Ike and Gustav (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Notes 5 and 14”).
          Service revenues increased $200 million, or 26 percent, from 2007. The increase was primarily due to higher volume on the CVN-65 USS Enterprise EDSRA, which began in the second quarter of 2008, and a full year of sales from our AMSEC fleet support business, which became a consolidated subsidiary of NGSB in the third quarter of 2007 (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 11”).
          Cost of Sales and Service Revenues
          Cost of sales and service revenues and corporate home office and other general and administrative costs were as follows:
                                         
    Six months ended June 30   Year ended December 31
 $ in millions   2010     2009     2009     2008     2007  
 
 Cost of product sales
  $ 2,572     $ 2,066     $ 4,415     $ 4,672     $ 3,992  
% of product sales
    89.1%       87.9%       87.5%       89.7%       81.3%  
 Cost of service revenues
    368       529       1,027       817       612  
% of service revenues
    84.4%       87.7%       82.4%       83.2%       78.3%  
 Corporate home office and general and administrative expenses
    315       295       639       564       641  
% of total sales and service revenues
    9.5%       10.0%       10.2%       9.1%       11.3%  
 Goodwill impairment
    -       -       -       2,490       -  
 
 Cost of sales and service revenues
  $ 3,255     $ 2,890     $ 6,081     $ 8,543     $ 5,245  
 
Cost of Product Sales and Service Revenues
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Cost of product sales for the six months ended June 30, 2010 increased $506 million, or 24 percent, from the same period in 2009 primarily as a result of the higher sales volume described above. The increase in cost of product sales as a percentage of product sales resulted from a $113 million pre-tax charge in the second quarter of 2010 resulting from our decision to wind down our shipbuilding operations at our Avondale facility in 2013 (see “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)—Note 2”), partially offset in 2009 by the net effect of non-recurring charges totaling $127 million on the LPD-22 through LPD-25 contract and a favorable adjustment of $54 million on the LHD-8 contract (see “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)—
Note 6”).
          Cost of service revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2010 decreased $161 million, or 30 percent, from the same period in 2009 primarily as a result of the lower sales volume described above. The decrease in cost of service revenue as a percentage of service revenues is primarily due to performance improvements realized on the CVN-65 USS Enterprise EDSRA in the first half of 2010.
          2009 – Cost of product sales in 2009 decreased $257 million, or 6 percent, from 2008 primarily as a result of the lower sales volume described above. The decrease in cost of product sales as a percentage of product sales resulted from the

62


Table of Contents

non-recurring $263 million charge on LHD-8 and other Gulf Coast programs in 2008, partially offset by $171 million in charges in 2009 on the LPD-22 through LPD-25 contract (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 5”).
          Cost of service revenues in 2009 increased $210 million, or 26 percent, from 2008 primarily as a result of the higher sales volume described above. The modest decrease in cost of service revenue as a percentage of service revenues is the result of normal year-to-year variances in contract mix.
          2008 – Cost of product sales in 2008 increased $680 million, or 17 percent, from 2007 primarily as a result of the higher sales volume described above. The increase in cost of product sales as a percentage of product sales is primarily due to cost growth at the Gulf Coast shipyards. In 2008, we recorded a non-recurring $263 million charge on LHD-8 and other Gulf Coast programs, as well as additional costs for work delays at a subcontractor on the LPD program as a result of Hurricane Ike.
          Cost of service revenues in 2008 increased $205 million, or 33 percent, from 2007 primarily due to the sales volume increase described above. Cost of service revenues as a percentage of service revenues was reduced in 2007 by the $23 million gain on the AMSEC reorganization, which was recorded as a reduction to cost of service revenues in that year (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 11”).
Corporate Home Office and Other General and Administrative Costs
          In accordance with industry practice and the regulations that govern the cost accounting requirements for government contracts, most corporate home office and other general and administrative costs are considered allowable and allocable costs on government contracts. These costs are allocated to contracts in progress on a systematic basis and contract performance factors include this cost component as an element of cost.
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Corporate home office and other general and administrative costs as a percentage of total sales and service revenues decreased from 10.0 percent in the six months ended June 30, 2009 to 9.5 percent in the same period in 2010, primarily as a result of lower pension and post-retirement benefit expenses and higher sales volume in 2010.
          2009 – Corporate home office and other general and administrative costs as a percentage of total sales and service revenues increased from 9.1 percent in 2008 to 10.2 percent in 2009, primarily as a result of higher net pension and post-retirement benefits expense and increased state income tax expense.
          2008 – Corporate home office and other general and administrative costs as a percentage of total sales and service revenues decreased from 11.3 percent in 2007 to 9.1 percent in 2008, primarily as a result of lower net pension and post-retirement benefits expense and lower state tax expense.
Goodwill Impairment
          In 2008, we recorded a non-cash charge totaling $2.5 billion for the impairment of goodwill, driven primarily by adverse equity market conditions that caused a decrease in current market multiples and Northrop Grumman’s stock price as of November 30, 2008. See “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 8.”
          Operating Income (Loss)
          We consider operating income to be an important measure for evaluating our operating performance and, as is typical in the industry, we define operating income as revenues less the related cost of producing the revenues and corporate home office and other general and administrative costs.
          We internally manage our operations by reference to “segment operating income.” Segment operating income is defined as operating income before net pension and post-retirement benefits adjustment and deferred state income taxes, neither of which affects segment performance. Segment operating income is one of the key metrics we use to evaluate operating performance. Segment operating income is not, however, a measure of financial performance under the generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“GAAP”), and may not be defined and calculated by other companies in the same manner.

63


Table of Contents

          The table below reconciles segment operating income to total operating income:
                                         
    Six months ended June 30   Year ended December 31
 $ in millions   2010     2009     2009     2008     2007  
 
 Segment operating income (loss)
  $ 89     $ 100     $ 284     $ (2,328 )   $ 491  
 Net pension and post-retirement benefits adjustment
    (27 )     (44 )     (88 )     (25 )     (46 )
 Deferred state income taxes
    5       8       15       (1 )     2  
 
 Total operating income (loss)
  $ 67     $ 64     $ 211     $ (2,354 )   $ 447  
 
Segment Operating Income (Loss)
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Segment operating income for the six months ended June 30, 2010 was $89 million, a decrease of $11 million from the same period in 2009. Segment operating income was 2.6 percent and 3.3 percent of sales and service revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2010, and 2009, respectively. The results for 2010 include the effects of our decision to wind down our shipbuilding operations at our Avondale facility, which resulted in a pre-tax charge of $113 million in the second quarter (see “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)—Note 2”). The first six months of 2009 included charges totaling $127 million on the LPD-22 through LPD-25 contract (see “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)—Note 6”). Activity within each segment is discussed in “—Segment Operating Results” below.
          2009 – Segment operating income was $284 million as compared with a segment operating loss of $2.3 billion in 2008. The increase was primarily due to the 2008 goodwill impairment charge of $2.5 billion (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 8”), and improved performance on the LHD expeditionary warfare program as compared to 2008. In 2008, the Gulf Coast segment had net negative performance adjustments of $263 million due principally to adjustments on the LHD-8 contract, as well as cost growth and schedule delays on the LPD program and the effects of Hurricane Ike on a subcontractor’s performance (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Notes 5 and 14”).
          2008 – Segment operating loss was $2.3 billion as compared with segment operating income of $491 million in 2007. The decrease was due to a goodwill impairment charge of $2.5 billion (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 8”), and $366 million in net lower performance results at our Gulf Coast segment, partially offset by the higher sales volume described above. The decrease in performance results was primarily due to $263 million in net performance adjustments on LHD-8 and other programs in 2008, cost growth and schedule delays on multiple LPD ships resulting primarily from the effects of Hurricane Ike on an LPD subcontractor (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Notes 5 and 14”), and the effect of reductions in contract booking rates resulting from risk assessments on programs throughout the Gulf Coast shipyards.
Net Pension and Post-Retirement Benefits Adjustment
          Net pension and post-retirement benefits adjustment reflects the difference between expenses for pension and other post-retirement benefits determined in accordance with GAAP and the expenses for these items included in segment operating income in accordance with CAS.
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – The net pension and post-retirement benefits adjustment was an expense of $27 million and $44 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010, and 2009, respectively. The decrease in net expense is primarily due to lower GAAP pension expense as a result of favorable returns on pension plan assets in 2009.
          2009 – The net pension and post-retirement benefits adjustment was an expense of $88 million and $25 million in 2009 and 2008, respectively. The increase in net expense in 2009 was primarily due to negative returns on plan assets in 2008.
          2008 – The net pension and post-retirement benefits adjustment was an expense of $25 million and $46 million in 2008 and 2007, respectively. The lower net expense in 2008 was due to decreased GAAP pension expense, primarily resulting from better-than-estimated investment returns in prior years and higher discount rate assumptions.
Deferred State Income Taxes
          Deferred state income taxes reflect the change in deferred state tax assets and liabilities in the period. These amounts are recorded within operating income while the current period state income tax expense is charged to contract costs and included in cost of sales and service revenues in segment operating income.
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – The benefit provided by deferred state income taxes was $5 million in the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to a benefit of $8 million for the same period in 2009. The change was primarily due to the timing of contract-related deductions.

64


Table of Contents

          2009 – The benefit provided by deferred state income taxes in 2009 was $15 million, compared to an expense of $1 million in 2008. The change was primarily due to the timing of contract-related deductions.
          2008 – Deferred state income tax expense in 2008 was $1 million, compared to a deferred state income tax benefit of $2 million in 2007. The change was primarily due to the timing of contract-related deductions.
          Interest Expense
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Interest expense for the six months ended June 30, 2010 decreased $2 million from the same period in 2009. The decrease is primarily due to higher capitalized interest in 2010, which resulted from a higher proportion of long-term capital projects accumulating such interest in 2010 as compared to the same period in 2009.
          2009 – Interest expense in 2009 decreased $4 million, or 10 percent, as compared with 2008. The decrease is primarily due to higher capitalized interest in 2009, which resulted from a higher proportion of long-term capital projects accumulating such interest in 2009 as compared to 2008.
          2008 – Interest expense in 2008 decreased $2 million, or 4 percent, as compared with 2007. The decrease is primarily due to higher capitalized interest in 2008.
          Other, net
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Other, net for the six months ended June 30, 2010 was comparable with the same period in 2009.
          2009 – Other, net for 2009 increased $1 million from 2008 due to higher interest income and lower miscellaneous expenses.
          2008 – Other, net for 2008 decreased $6 million as compared with 2007. In 2007, we earned interest income on restricted cash balances related to the Gulf Opportunity Zone Industrial Development Revenue Bonds. These cash balances were eliminated in 2008 when the restrictions were released. See “—Investing Activities” below and also “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 10.”
          Federal Income Taxes
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Our effective tax rate on earnings from continuing operations for the six months ended June 30, 2010 was 36.1 percent compared with 31.0 percent for the same period in 2009. The increase in effective tax rate is due to the elimination of certain tax benefits with the passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, partially offset by the effects of the settlement with the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation of our parent’s tax returns for the years 2004 through 2006. As a result of the settlement, we reduced our liability for uncertain tax positions by approximately $9 million in the first half of 2010, which was recorded as a reduction to our provision for income taxes. See “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)—Note 8.”
          2009 – Our effective tax rate on earnings from continuing operations for 2009 was 29.5 percent compared with 27.1 percent in 2008 (excluding the non-cash, non-deductible goodwill impairment charge of $2.5 billion). The effective tax rate for 2008 was lower than 2009 due to the benefit of a higher wage credit in 2008 offset by a higher manufacturing deduction in 2009.
          2008 – Our effective tax rate on earnings from continuing operations for 2008 was 27.1 percent (excluding the non-cash, non-deductible goodwill impairment charge of $2.5 billion) compared with 32.9 percent in 2007. The effective tax rate for 2008 was lower than 2007 due to the benefit of a higher wage credit and manufacturing deduction in 2008.
          Net Earnings (Loss)
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Net earnings for the six months ended June 30, 2010 increased $1 million from the same period in 2009, following the changes in income elements discussed above.
          2009 – Net earnings in 2009 increased $2,544 million, following the changes in income elements discussed above. The primary driver of the increase in 2009 was the goodwill impairment charge of $2.5 billion recorded in 2008.
          2008 – Net earnings in 2008 decreased $2,696 million. The primary driver of the decrease was the goodwill impairment charge of $2.5 billion recorded in 2008 and the net performance adjustments affecting segment operating income discussed above.

65


Table of Contents

          Net Cash (Used in) Provided by Operating Activities
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Net cash used in operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2010 was $22 million compared with $125 million in the same period in 2009. The change of $103 million was driven primarily by unfavorable contract billing adjustments over the first six months of 2009.
          2009 – Net cash used in operating activities in 2009 was $88 million compared with cash provided of $339 million in 2008. The change was driven primarily by performance issues on the LPD-22 through LPD-25 contract (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 5”) and LHA-6.
          2008 – Net cash provided by operating activities in 2008 was $339 million compared with $610 million in 2007. The decrease was driven primarily by the receipt of $123 million of insurance proceeds related to Hurricane Katrina in 2007. Additionally, cash provided by operating activities in 2008 was impacted by unfavorable performance on LHD-8 (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 5”).
Segment Operating Results
          Basis of Presentation
          We are aligned into two reportable segments: Gulf Coast and Newport News.
                                         
    Six months ended June 30   Year ended December 31
 $ in millions   2010     2009     2009     2008     2007  
 
 Sales and Service Revenues
                                       
Gulf Coast
  $  1,541     1,328     $  2,865     2,848     2,681  
Newport News
    1,820       1,676       3,534       3,427       3,044  
Intersegment eliminations
    (39 )     (50 )     (107 )     (86 )     (33 )
 
Total sales and service revenues
  $  3,322     2,954     $  6,292     6,189     5,692  
 
                                         
    Six months ended June 30   Year ended December 31
 $ in millions   2010     2009     2009     2008     2007  
 
 Operating Income (Loss)
                                       
Gulf Coast
  $  (70 )   (34 )   $  (29 )   (1,433 )   201  
Newport News
    159       134       313       (895 )     290  
 
 Total Segment Operating Income (Loss)
    89       100       284       (2,328 )     491  
Non-segment factors affecting operating income (loss)
                                       
Net pension and post-retirement benefits adjustment
    (27 )     (44 )     (88 )     (25 )     (46 )
Deferred state income taxes
    5       8       15       (1 )     2  
 
 Total operating income (loss)
  $  67     64     $  211     (2,354 )   447  
 
Key Segment Financial Measures
          Sales and Service Revenues
          Period-to-period sales reflect performance under new and ongoing contracts. Changes in sales and service revenues are typically expressed in terms of volume. Unless otherwise described, volume generally refers to increases (or decreases) in reported revenues due to varying production activity levels, delivery rates, or service levels on individual contracts. Volume changes will typically carry a corresponding income change based on the margin rate for a particular contract.
          Segment Operating Income
          Segment operating income reflects the aggregate performance results of contracts within a business area or segment. Excluded from this measure are certain costs not directly associated with contract performance, including net pension and post-retirement benefits expenses and deferred state income taxes. Changes in segment operating income are typically expressed in terms of volume, as discussed in Sales and Service Revenues above, or performance. Performance refers to changes in contract margin rates. These changes typically relate to profit recognition associated with revisions to total estimated costs at completion of the contract (“EAC”) that reflect improved (or deteriorated) operating performance on a particular contract. Operating income changes are accounted for on a cumulative to date basis at the time an EAC change is recorded. Segment operating income may also be affected by, among other things, contract performance, the effects of

66


Table of Contents

workforce stoppages, the effects of natural disasters (such as hurricanes), resolution of disputed items with the customer, recovery of insurance proceeds, and other discrete events. At the completion of a long-term contract, any originally estimated costs not incurred or reserves not fully utilized (such as warranty reserves) could also impact contract earnings. Where such items have occurred, and the effects are material, a separate description is provided.
          Program Descriptions
          For convenience, a brief description of certain programs discussed in this registration statement on Form 10 is included in the “Glossary of Programs” beginning on page 17.
Gulf Coast
                                         
   Six months ended June 30 Year ended December 31
 
 
 
 $ in millions   2010   2009   2009   2008   2007
 
Sales and service revenues
    $ 1,541       $  1,328       $ 2,865       $  2,848       $ 2,681  
Segment operating (loss) income
    (70 )     (34 )     (29 )     (1,433 )     201  
As a percentage of segment sales
    (4.5%)       (2.6%)       (1.0%)     (50.3%)       7.5%  
 
          Sales and Service Revenues
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Gulf Coast revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2010 increased $213 million from the same period in 2009, primarily driven by $245 million higher sales in Expeditionary Warfare, partially offset by $33 million lower sales in Coast Guard & Coastal Defense. The increase in Expeditionary Warfare was due to higher sales volume in the LPD program and on LHA-6 America. The decrease in Coast Guard & Coastal Defense was primarily due to lower sales volume in 2010 on NSC-2 USCGC Waesche, which was delivered in the fourth quarter of 2009.
          2009 – Gulf Coast revenues increased $17 million from 2008, primarily driven by $81 million higher sales in Expeditionary Warfare, partially offset by $64 million lower sales in Surface Combatants. The increase in Expeditionary Warfare was due to higher sales volume in the LPD program due to production ramp-ups, partially offset by the delivery of the LHD-8. The decrease in Surface Combatants was primarily due to lower sales volume on the DDG-51 program.
          2008 – Gulf Coast revenues increased $167 million, or 6 percent, from 2007. The increase was primarily due to $148 million higher sales in Surface Combatants and $145 million higher sales in Fleet Support, partially offset by $83 million lower sales in Expeditionary Warfare and $40 million lower sales in Coast Guard & Coastal Defense. The increase in Surface Combatants was primarily due to higher sales volume in the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 programs. The increase in Fleet Support was primarily driven by a full year of sales from AMSEC, which became a consolidated subsidiary of NGSB through a step acquisition in the third quarter of 2007. Expeditionary Warfare sales for 2008 were negatively impacted by a contract adjustment of $134 million on the LHD-8 program and the impact of Hurricane Gustav, partially offset by higher sales in the LPD program. The decrease in Coast Guard & Coastal Defense was due to the impact of Hurricane Gustav. In 2007, all programs at the Pascagoula, Mississippi facility were negatively impacted by a labor strike.
          Segment Operating Income
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Gulf Coast operating loss for the six months ended June 30, 2010 was $70 million as compared with a loss of $34 million in the same period in 2009. In the first half of 2010, we recognized a pre-tax charge of $113 million resulting from our decision to wind down our shipbuilding operations at our Avondale facility in 2013 (see “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)—Note 2”). Operating income in the first half of 2009 included a favorable adjustment of $54 million on the LHD-8 contract, which was more than offset by unfavorable adjustments of $38 million and $127 million on the DDG-51 and LPD programs, respectively.
          2009 – Gulf Coast operating loss was $29 million as compared with a loss of $1.4 billion in 2008. The change was primarily due to the 2008 goodwill impairment charge of $2.5 billion, of which the Gulf Coast segment realized $1.3 billion (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 8”), and improved performance on LHD-8 as compared to 2008. In 2008, Gulf Coast had net negative performance adjustments of $263 million due principally to adjustments on the LHD-8 contract, as well as cost growth and schedule delays on the LPD program and the effects of Hurricane Ike on an LPD subcontractor’s performance. The absence of these unfavorable events in 2009 was partially offset by $171 million in net unfavorable performance adjustments on the LPD-22 through LPD-25 contract (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 5”).
          2008 – Gulf Coast operating loss was $1.4 billion as compared with operating income of $201 million in 2007. The decrease was due to a goodwill impairment charge of $2.5 billion, of which the Gulf Coast segment realized $1.3 billion (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 8”), and $366 million in net lower performance results, partially

67


Table of Contents

offset by the higher sales volume described above. The decrease in performance results was primarily due to $263 million in net performance adjustments on LHD-8 and other programs in 2008 (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 5”), cost growth and schedule delays on several LPD ships resulting primarily from the effects of Hurricane Ike on an LPD subcontractor (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 14”), and the effect of reductions in contract booking rates resulting from risk assessments on programs throughout the Gulf Coast shipyards. Segment operating income for 2008 also included a $23 million gain on the AMSEC reorganization, which was recorded as an increase to operating margin in that year (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 11”).
Newport News
                                         
  Six months ended June 30 Year ended December 31
 
 
 
 $ in millions   2010   2009   2009   2008   2007
 
Sales and service revenues
    $ 1,820     1,676       $ 3,534     $ 3,427     3,044  
Segment operating income (loss)
    159       134       313       (895 )     290  
As a percentage of segment sales
    8.7%     8.0%       8.9%     (26.1%)       9.5%  
 
          Sales and Service Revenues
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Newport News revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2010 increased $144 million, or 8 percent, from the same period in 2009, primarily driven by $145 million higher sales in Aircraft Carriers. The increase in Aircraft Carriers was primarily due to higher sales volume on CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford and CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt RCOH, partially offset by lower volume on CVN-77 USS George H.W. Bush and CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson RCOH, both of which were completed in the second quarter of 2009.
          2009 – Newport News revenues increased $107 million, or 3 percent, from 2008, primarily driven by $176 million higher sales in Submarines and $26 million higher sales in Aircraft Carriers, partially offset by $111 million lower sales in Fleet Support. The increase in Submarines was primarily due to higher sales volume on the construction of SSN-774 Virginia-class submarines. The increase in Aircraft Carriers was primarily due to higher sales volume on CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford, CVN-65 USS Enterprise EDSRA and CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt RCOH, partially offset by lower volume on CVN-77 USS George H.W. Bush and CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson RCOH, both of which were completed in the second quarter of 2009. The decrease in Fleet Support was primarily due to the redelivery of the USS Toledo submarine in the first quarter of 2009 and decreased carrier fleet support services.
          2008 – Newport News revenues increased $383 million, or 13 percent, from 2007, primarily driven by $283 million higher sales in Aircraft Carriers and $64 million higher sales in Submarines. The increase in Aircraft Carriers was primarily due to higher sales volume on CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford, CVN-65 USS Enterprise EDSRA and CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt RCOH, partially offset by lower volume on CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson RCOH. The increase in Submarines was primarily due to higher sales volume on the construction of SSN-774 Virginia-class submarines.
          Segment Operating Income
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Newport News operating income for the six months ended June 30, 2010 was $159 million compared with $134 million in the same period in 2009. The increase was primarily due to the impact of the sales volume changes described above for Aircraft Carriers.
          2009 – Newport News operating income was $313 million as compared with a loss of $895 million in 2008. The increase was primarily due to the 2008 goodwill impairment charge of $2.5 billion, of which the Newport News segment realized $1.2 billion (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 8”). Additionally, the change in segment operating income in 2009 includes the impact of the higher sales volume described above for Aircraft Carriers and Submarines, partially offset by the impact of lower sales volume in Fleet Support.
          2008 – Newport News operating loss was $895 million as compared with operating income of $290 million in 2007. The decrease was due to a goodwill impairment charge of $2.5 billion, of which the Newport News segment realized $1.2 billion (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 8”). Additionally, the change in segment operating income in 2008 includes the impact of the higher sales volume described above for Aircraft Carriers and Submarines.
Backlog
          Total backlog at June 30, 2010, and December 31, 2009, was approximately $18 billion and $20 billion, respectively. Total backlog includes both funded backlog (firm orders for which funding is contractually obligated by the customer) and unfunded backlog (firm orders for which funding is not currently contractually obligated by the customer). Backlog excludes unexercised contract options and unfunded Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) orders. For contracts having no stated contract values, backlog includes only the amounts committed by the customer.

68


Table of Contents

          The following table presents funded and unfunded backlog by segment at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009:
                                                 
    June 30, 2010   December 31, 2009
 $ in millions   Funded   Unfunded   Total   Funded   Unfunded   Total
 
Gulf Coast
  4,505     781     5,286     6,070     38     6,108  
Newport News
    6,576       6,552       13,128       5,141       9,116       14,257  
 
Total backlog
  11,081     7,333     18,414     11,211     9,154     20,365  
 
          Backlog is converted into the following years’ sales as costs are incurred or deliveries are made. Approximately 21 percent of the $20 billion total backlog at December 31, 2009 is expected to be converted into sales in 2010. Total U.S. Government orders comprised 99 percent of the total backlog at the end of 2009. Backlog with other customers represented 1 percent of total backlog at the end of 2009.
          Awards
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – The value of new contract awards during the six months ended June 30, 2010, was approximately $1.3 billion. Significant new awards during this period include $187 million for the CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, $184 million for LPD-26 John P. Murtha, $136 million for LHA-7 (unnamed), and $114 million for DDG-114 Callaghan.
          2009 – The value of new contract awards during the year ended December 31, 2009, was approximately $4.3 billion. Significant new awards during this period include a contract valued at up to $2.4 billion for the CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt RCOH, a contract valued at up to $635 million for engineering, design and modernization support of submarines, and $374 million for the CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier.
          2008 – The value of new contract awards during the year ended December 31, 2008, was approximately $14.9 billion. Significant new awards during this period include $5.6 billion for the Virginia-class submarine program, $5.1 billion for the CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, and $1.4 billion for the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer.
          Backlog Adjustments
          In 2009, Gulf Coast segment backlog includes a decrease of $670 million for the customer’s restructuring of the DDG-1000 program.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
          We endeavor to ensure the most efficient conversion of operating results into cash for deployment in operating our businesses and maximizing stockholder value. We effectively utilize our capital resources through working capital management, capital expenditures, strategic business acquisitions, debt service, required and voluntary pension contributions, and returning cash to stockholders through Northrop Grumman.
          We use various financial measures to assist in capital deployment decision making, including net cash provided by operations and free cash flow. We believe these measures are useful to investors in assessing our financial performance.
          The table below summarizes key components of cash flow provided by operating activities.
                                         
  Six months ended June 30 Year ended December 31
 
 
 
 $ in millions   2010   2009   2009   2008   2007
 
Net earnings (loss)
  30     29     124     (2,420 )   276  
Goodwill impairment
    -          -          -          2,490       -     
Gain on AMSEC reorganization
    -          -          -          -          (23 )
Deferred income taxes
    (13 )     (28 )     (98 )     10       (6 )
Other non-cash items (1)
    96       90       186       193       170  
Trade working capital (increase) decrease
    (135 )     (216 )     (300 )     66       193  
 
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities
  $   (22 )   $   (125 )   $   (88 )   $   339     $   610  
 
(1) Includes depreciation and amortization.
          Free Cash Flow
          Free cash flow represents cash from operating activities less capital expenditures. We believe free cash flow is a useful measure for investors to consider. This measure is a key factor in our planning for the period.

69


Table of Contents

          Free cash flow is not a measure of financial performance under GAAP, and may not be defined and calculated by other companies in the same manner. This measure should not be considered in isolation, as a measure of residual cash flow available for discretionary purposes, or as an alternative to operating results presented in accordance with GAAP as indicators of performance.
          The table below reconciles net cash provided by operating activities to free cash flow:
                                         
  Six months ended June 30 Year ended December 31
 
 
 
 $ in millions   2010   2009   2009   2008   2007
 
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities
  (22 )   (125 )   (88 )   339     610  
Less capital expenditures
    (60 )     (84 )     (181 )     (218 )     (246 )
 
Free cash flow from operations
  (82 )   (209 )   (269 )   121     364  
 
          Cash Flows
          The following is a discussion of our major operating, investing and financing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2010, and 2009, respectively, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2009, as classified on the consolidated statements of cash flows.
          Operating Activities
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Net cash used in operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2010, was $22 compared with $125 for the same period in 2009. The change of $103 million was driven primarily by unfavorable contract billing adjustments over the first six months of 2009. Pension plan contributions totaled $1 million in the six months ended June 30, 2010 compared with $10 million in the same period in 2009. Net cash provided by operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2010 included $26 million of federal income tax payments compared with $33 million in the same period in 2009.
          We expect cash generated from operations for 2010 to be sufficient to service debt, meet contract obligations and finance capital expenditures. Although 2010 cash from operations is expected to be sufficient to service these obligations, we may borrow funds from Northrop Grumman to accommodate timing differences in cash flows.
          2009 – Net cash provided by operating activities in 2009 decreased $427 million as compared with 2008, driven primarily by performance issues on the LPD-22 through LPD-25 contract (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 5”) and LHA-6. Pension plan contributions totaled $201 million in 2009, of which $199 million was voluntarily pre-funded. Net cash provided by operating activities for 2009 included $132 million of federal income tax payments.
          2008 – Net cash provided by operating activities in 2008 decreased $271 million as compared with 2007, driven primarily by unfavorable performance on LHD-8 (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 5”). Cash provided by operating activities in 2007 included receipt of $123 million of insurance proceeds related to Hurricane Katrina. Pension plan contributions totaled $114 million in 2008, of which $60 million was voluntarily pre-funded. Net cash provided by operating activities for 2008 included $21 million of federal income tax payments.
          2007 – Cash provided by operating activities in 2007 of $610 million included the receipt of $123 million of insurance proceeds related to Hurricane Katrina and trade working capital reductions. Pension plan contributions totaled $58 million in 2007. Net cash provided by operating activities for 2007 included $158 million of federal income tax payments.
          Investing Activities
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Cash used by investing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2010, was $60 million compared with $84 million for the same period in 2009. Investing activities for both six month periods were comprised entirely of capital expenditures.
          2009 – Cash used by investing activities was $178 million in 2009, driven by $181 million in capital expenditures.
          2008 – Cash used by investing activities was $152 million in 2008, driven by $218 million in capital expenditures. During 2008, we received $61million from the release of restricted cash related to the Gulf Opportunity Zone Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 10”).
          2007 – Cash used by investing activities was $189 million in 2007, driven by $246 million in capital expenditures, including $118 million to replace property damaged by Hurricane Katrina. During 2007, we paid $8 million related to the reorganization of AMSEC and we received $66 million from the release of restricted cash related to the Gulf Opportunity

70


Table of Contents

Zone Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 10”) of which $61 million remained restricted as of December 31, 2007.
          Business Acquisitions
          In July 2007, we reorganized AMSEC with our partner, Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”), by dividing AMSEC along customer and product lines. AMSEC is a full-service supplier that provides engineering, logistics and technical support services primarily to U.S. Navy ship and aviation programs. Under the reorganization plan, we retained the ship engineering, logistics and technical service businesses under the AMSEC name (the “AMSEC Businesses”) and, in exchange, SAIC received the aviation, combat systems and strike force integration services businesses (the “Divested Businesses”). We treated this reorganization as a step acquisition for the acquisition of SAIC’s interests in the AMSEC Businesses, and recognized a pre-tax gain of $23 million for the effective sale of our interests in the Divested Businesses. From the date of this reorganization, the operating results of the AMSEC Businesses and transaction gain have been presented in our consolidated results. Prior to the reorganization, we accounted for our ownership in AMSEC, LLC under the equity method.
          Financing Activities
          Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 – Net cash provided by financing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2010, was $82 million compared with $209 million for the same period in 2009. These amounts were provided by Northrop Grumman and represent the net cash deficit resulting from operating and investing activities as discussed above.
          2009 – Cash provided by financing activities in 2009 was $266 million compared with cash used in financing activities of $187 million in 2008. The $266 million was provided by Northrop Grumman and represents the net cash deficit resulting from operating and investing activities as discussed above.
          2008 – Cash used in financing activities in 2008 was $187 million compared with a use of $421 million in 2007, which was provided to Northrop Grumman and represents the net cash surplus provided by operating activities in excess of the cash used in investing activities as discussed above.
          2007 – Cash used in financing activities in 2007 was $421 million, which was provided to Northrop Grumman and represents the net cash surplus provided by operating activities in excess of the cash used in investing activities as discussed above.
          Other Sources and Uses of Capital
          Additional Capital – Northrop Grumman currently provides any capital needed in excess of the amounts generated by our operating activities. After completion of the spin-off, we will be an independent, publicly traded company and we expect to obtain such funds from the capital markets as needed. We expect cash generated from operations for 2010 to be sufficient to service debt, meet contractual obligations and finance capital expenditures.
          Financial Arrangements – In the ordinary course of business, Northrop Grumman uses standby letters of credit issued by commercial banks and surety bonds issued by insurance companies principally to guarantee the performance on certain contracts and to support our self-insured workers’ compensation plans. At both June 30, 2010, and December 31, 2009, there were $21 million of unused stand-by letters of credit and $296 million of surety bonds outstanding related to us. After completion of the spin-off, we will be an independent, publicly traded company and we plan to obtain similar arrangements from the capital markets as needed although we may not be able to obtain letters of credit and surety bonds in the same amount and on as favorable terms and conditions as prior to the spin-off.

71


Table of Contents

Contractual Obligations
          The following table presents our contractual obligations as of December 31, 2009, and the estimated timing of future cash payments:
                                         
                    2011-     2013-     2015 and  
 $ in millions   Total     2010     2012     2014     beyond  
 
Notes payable to parent (1)
  537     -        -        -        537  
Accrued interest on notes payable to parent (1)
    212       -          -          -          212  
Long-term debt
    283       -          -          -          283  
Interest payments on long-term debt
    268       16       32       32       188  
Operating leases
    152       22       37       26       67  
Purchase obligations (2)
    1,991       981       691       297       22  
Other long-term liabilities (3)
    576       120       285       112       59  
 
Total contractual obligations
  $   4,019     $   1,139     $   1,045     $   467     $   1,368  
 
(1)   Northrop Grumman will contribute the amount of the notes payable to the capital of New Ships, including accrued interest, prior to the distribution date.
 
(2)   A “purchase obligation” is defined as an agreement to purchase goods or services that is enforceable and legally binding on us and that specifies all significant terms, including: fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased; fixed, minimum, or variable price provisions; and the approximate timing of the transaction. These amounts are primarily comprised of open purchase order commitments to vendors and subcontractors pertaining to funded contracts.
 
(3)   Other long-term liabilities primarily consist of total accrued workers’ compensation reserves, deferred compensation, and other miscellaneous liabilities, of which $255 million is the current portion of workers’ compensation liabilities. It excludes obligations for uncertain tax positions of $26 million, as the timing of the payments, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated.
          Further details regarding long-term debt and operating leases can be found in “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Notes 10 and 13.”
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
          As of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, we had no significant off-balance sheet arrangements other than operating leases. For a description of our operating leases, see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Notes 2 and 13.”
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
          Interest Rates – At June 30, 2010, and December 31, 2009, we do not consider the market risk exposure relating to interest rates to be material to the consolidated financial statements. Substantially all outstanding borrowings were fixed-rate long-term debt obligations. See “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 10.”
          Foreign Currency – We may enter into foreign currency forward contracts to manage foreign currency exchange rate risk related to payments to suppliers denominated in foreign currencies. At June 30, 2010, and December 31, 2009, the amount of foreign currency forward contracts outstanding was not material.
Critical Accounting Policies, Estimates and Judgments
          Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP, which require management to make estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes. Management considers an accounting policy to be critical if it is important to our financial condition and results of operations, and if it requires significant judgment and estimates on the part of management in its application. The development and selection of these critical accounting policies have been determined by our management. Due to the significant judgment involved in selecting certain of the assumptions used in these areas, it is possible that different parties could choose different assumptions and reach different conclusions. We consider the policies relating to the following matters to be critical accounting policies:
    Revenue recognition
 
    Purchase accounting and goodwill
 
    Litigation, commitments and contingencies

72


Table of Contents

    Retirement benefits
 
    Workers’ compensation
          Revenue Recognition
          Overview – We derive the majority of our business from long-term contracts for the production of goods and services provided to the federal government, which are accounted for in conformity with GAAP for construction-type and production-type contracts and federal government contractors. We classify contract revenues as product sales or service revenues depending on the predominant attributes of the relevant underlying contracts. We consider the nature of these contracts and the types of products and services provided when determining the proper accounting method for a particular contract.
          Percentage-of-Completion Accounting – We generally recognize revenues from our long-term contracts under the cost-to-cost measure of the percentage-of-completion method of accounting. The percentage-of-completion method recognizes income as work on a contract progresses. For most contracts, sales are calculated based on the percentage of total costs incurred in relation to total estimated costs at completion of the contract. For certain contracts with large up-front purchases of material, sales are generally calculated based on the percentage that direct labor costs incurred bear to total estimated direct labor costs.
          The use of the percentage-of-completion method depends on our ability to make reasonably dependable cost estimates for the design, manufacture, and delivery of our products and services. Such costs are typically incurred over a period of several years, and estimation of these costs requires the use of judgment. We record sales under cost-type contracts as costs are incurred.
          Many contracts contain positive and negative profit incentives based upon performance relative to predetermined targets that may occur during or subsequent to delivery of the product. These incentives take the form of potential additional fees to be earned or penalties to be incurred. Incentives and award fees that can be reasonably assured and reasonably estimated are recorded over the performance period of the contract. Incentives and award fees that are not reasonably assured or cannot be reasonably estimated are recorded when awarded or at such time as a reasonable estimate can be made.
          Changes in estimates of contract sales, costs and profits are recognized using the cumulative catch-up method of accounting. This method recognizes in the current period the cumulative effect of the changes on current and prior periods. Hence, the effect of the changes on future periods of contract performance is recognized as if the revised estimate had been the original estimate. A significant change in an estimate on one or more contracts could have a material effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations for that period.
          Cost Estimation – The cost estimation process requires significant judgment and is based upon the professional knowledge and experience of our engineers, program managers, and financial professionals. Factors that are considered in estimating the work to be completed and ultimate contract recovery include the availability, productivity and cost of labor, the nature and complexity of the work to be performed, the effect of change orders, the availability of materials, the effect of any delays in performance, the availability and timing of funding from the customer, and the recoverability of any claims included in the estimates to complete. A significant change in an estimate on one or more contracts could have a material effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations, and where such changes occur, separate disclosure is made of the nature, underlying conditions and financial impact from the change. We update our contract cost estimates at least annually and more frequently as determined by events or circumstances. We review and assess our cost and revenue estimates for each significant contract on a quarterly basis.
          We record a provision for the entire loss on a contract in the period the loss is determined when estimates of total costs to be incurred on the contract exceed estimates of total revenue to be earned. We offset loss provisions first against costs that are included in unbilled accounts receivable or inventoried assets, with any remaining amount reflected in other current liabilities.
          Purchase Accounting and Goodwill
          Overview – We allocate the purchase price of an acquired business to the underlying tangible and intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed based upon their respective fair market values, with the excess recorded as goodwill. Such fair market value assessments require judgments and estimates that can be affected by contract performance and other factors over time, which may cause final amounts to differ materially from original estimates. For acquisitions completed through December 31, 2008, we recorded adjustments to fair value assessments to goodwill over the purchase price allocation period (typically not exceeding twelve months), and adjusted goodwill for the resolution of income tax uncertainties which extended beyond the purchase price allocation period.

73


Table of Contents

          In 2009, we implemented new GAAP accounting guidance related to business combinations that impacts how we record adjustments to fair values included in the purchase price allocation and the resolution of income tax uncertainties. For acquisitions completed after January 1, 2009, any adjustments to the fair value of purchased assets and subsequent resolution of uncertain tax positions are recognized in net earnings, rather than as adjustments to goodwill. We have had no acquisitions since the new business combination GAAP requirements became effective.
          Tests for Impairment – We perform impairment tests for goodwill as of November 30 each year, or when evidence of potential impairment exists. We record a charge to operations when we determine that an impairment has occurred. In order to test for potential impairment, we use a discounted cash flow analysis, corroborated by comparative market multiples where appropriate.
          The principal factors used in the discounted cash flow analysis requiring judgment are the projected results of operations, discount rate and terminal value assumptions. The discount rate represents the expected cost of new capital. The terminal value assumptions are applied to the final year of the discounted cash flow model.
          During our last annual goodwill impairment test performed as of November 30, 2009, the estimated fair value of our reporting unit was sufficiently in excess of its carrying value such that no additional testing or impairment was required. Due to the many variables inherent in the estimation of a business’s fair value and the relative size of our recorded goodwill, differences in assumptions may have a material effect on the results of our impairment analysis.
          Litigation, Commitments, and Contingencies
          Overview – We are subject to a range of claims, lawsuits, environmental and income tax matters, and administrative proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Estimating liabilities and costs associated with these matters requires judgment and assessment based upon professional knowledge and experience of management and our internal and external legal counsel. In accordance with our practices relating to accounting for contingencies, we record amounts as charges to earnings after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each matter, including any settlement offers, and determine that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The ultimate resolution of any such exposure to us may vary from earlier estimates as further facts and circumstances become known.
          Environmental Accruals – We are subject to the environmental laws and regulations of the jurisdictions in which we conduct operations. We record a liability for the costs of expected environmental remediation obligations when we determine that it is probable we will incur such costs, and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. When a range of costs is possible and no amount within that range is a better estimate than another, we record the minimum amount of the range.
          Factors which could result in changes to the assessment of probability, range of estimated costs and environmental accruals include: modification of planned remedial actions, increase or decrease in the estimated time required to remediate, discovery of more extensive contamination than anticipated, results of efforts to involve other legally responsible parties, financial insolvency of other responsible parties, changes in laws and regulations or contractual obligations affecting remediation requirements and improvements in remediation technology. Although we cannot predict whether new information gained as projects progress will materially affect the estimated liability accrued, we do not anticipate that future remediation expenditures will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
          Asset Retirement Obligations – We record all known asset retirement obligations for which the liability’s fair value can be reasonably estimated, including certain asbestos removal, asset decommissioning and contractual lease restoration obligations. Recorded amounts are not material.
          We also have known conditional asset retirement obligations related to assets currently in use, such as certain asbestos remediation and asset decommissioning activities to be performed in the future, that are not reasonably estimable as of June 30, 2010, and December 31, 2009, due to insufficient information about the timing and method of settlement of the obligation. Accordingly, the fair value of these obligations has not been recorded in the consolidated financial statements. Environmental remediation and/or asset decommissioning of these facilities may be required when we cease to utilize these facilities. In addition, there may be conditional environmental asset retirement obligations that we have not yet discovered (e.g. asbestos may exist in certain buildings which we have not become aware of through its normal business operations), and therefore, these obligations also have not been included in the consolidated financial statements.
          In July 2010, we recorded a $12 million liability for conditional asset retirement obligations associated with the wind down of our construction activities at the Avondale, Louisiana facility by 2013 as this decision provided new information about the settlement timing for these potential obligations.

74


Table of Contents

          Litigation Accruals – Litigation accruals are recorded as charges to earnings when management, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each matter, including any settlement offers, has determined that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The ultimate resolution of any exposure to us may vary from earlier estimates as further facts and circumstances become known. Based upon the information available, we believe that the resolution of any of these various claims and legal proceedings would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
          Uncertain Tax Positions – In 2007, we adopted a new accounting standard related to uncertain tax positions, and made a comprehensive review of our portfolio of uncertain tax positions at the date of adoption. Only tax positions meeting the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold may be recognized or continue to be recognized in the financial statements. If a tax position does not meet the minimum statutory threshold to avoid payment of penalties, we recognize an expense for the amount of the penalty in the period the tax position is claimed in our tax return. We recognize interest accrued related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense. Penalties, if probable and reasonably estimable, are recognized as a component of income tax expense. The timing and amount of accrued interest is determined by the applicable tax law associated with an underpayment of income taxes. See “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 9.” Under existing GAAP, prior to January 1, 2009, changes in accruals associated with uncertainties arising from the resolution of pre-acquisition contingencies of acquired businesses were charged or credited to goodwill; effective January 1, 2009, such changes will be recorded to income tax expense. Adjustments to other tax accruals are generally recorded in earnings in the period they are determined.
          Retirement Benefits
          Overview – We annually evaluate assumptions used in determining projected benefit obligations and the fair values of plan assets for our pension plans and other post-retirement benefits plans in consultation with our outside actuaries. In the event that we determine that plan amendments or changes in the assumptions are warranted, future pension and post-retirement benefit expenses could increase or decrease.
          Assumptions – The principal assumptions that have a significant effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations are the discount rate, the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets, the health care cost trend rate and the estimated fair market value of plan assets. For certain plan assets where the fair market value is not readily determinable, such as real estate, private equity, and hedge funds, estimates of fair value are determined using the best information available.
          Discount Rate – The discount rate represents the interest rate that is used to determine the present value of future cash flows currently expected to be required to settle the pension and post-retirement benefit obligations. The discount rate is generally based on the yield of high-quality corporate fixed-income investments. At the end of each year, the discount rate is primarily determined using the results of bond yield curve models based on a portfolio of high quality bonds matching the notional cash inflows with the expected benefit payments for each significant benefit plan. Taking into consideration the factors noted above, our weighted-average pension composite discount rate was 6.04 percent at December 31, 2009, and 6.25 percent at December 31, 2008. Holding all other assumptions constant, and since net actuarial gains and losses were in excess of the 10 percent accounting corridor in 2009, an increase or decrease of 25 basis points in the discount rate assumption for 2009 would have decreased or increased pension and post-retirement benefit expense for 2009 by approximately $14 million, of which $1 million relates to post-retirement benefits, and decreased or increased the amount of the benefit obligation recorded at December 31, 2009, by approximately $120 million, of which $18 million relates to post-retirement benefits. The effects of hypothetical changes in the discount rate for a single year may not be representative and may be asymmetrical or nonlinear for future years because of the application of the accounting corridor. The accounting corridor is a defined range within which amortization of net gains and losses is not required. Due to adverse capital market conditions in 2008 our pension plan assets experienced a negative return of approximately 16 percent in 2008. As a result, substantially all of our plans experienced net actuarial losses outside the 10 percent accounting corridor at the end of 2008, thus requiring accumulated gains and losses to be amortized to expense. As a result of this condition, sensitivity of net periodic costs to changes in the discount rate was much higher in 2009 than was the case in 2008 and prior. This condition is expected to continue into the near future.
          Expected Long-Term Rate of Return – The expected long-term rate of return on plan assets represents the average rate of earnings expected on the funds invested in a specified target asset allocation to provide for anticipated future benefit payment obligations. For 2009 and 2008, we assumed an expected long-term rate of return on plan assets of 8.5 percent. An increase or decrease of 25 basis points in the expected long-term rate of return assumption for 2009, holding all other assumptions constant, would increase or decrease our pension and post-retirement benefit expense for 2009 by approximately $6 million.
          Health Care Cost Trend Rates – The health care cost trend rates represent the annual rates of change in the cost of health care benefits based on estimates of health care inflation, changes in health care utilization or delivery patterns,

75


Table of Contents

technological advances, and changes in the health status of the plan participants. For 2009, we assumed an expected initial health care cost trend rate of 7.5 percent and an ultimate health care cost trend rate of 5.0 percent reached in 2014. In 2008, we assumed an expected initial health care cost trend rate of 8.0 percent and an ultimate health care cost trend rate of 5.0 percent be reached in 2012.
          Differences in the initial through the ultimate health care cost trend rates within the range indicated below would have had the following impact on 2009 post-retirement benefit results:
                 
    1-Percentage   1-Percentage   
 $ in millions   Point Increase   Point Decrease   
 
Increase (Decrease) From Change in Health Care Cost Trend Rates To:
               
Post-retirement benefit expense
  $   2     (2 )
Post-retirement benefit liability
    22       (23 )
 
          Workers’ Compensation
          Our operations are subject to federal and state workers’ compensation laws. We maintain self-insured workers’ compensation plans, in addition to participating in federal administered second injury workers’ compensation funds. We estimate the required liability for such claims and state funding requirements on a discounted basis utilizing actuarial methods based on various assumptions, which include, but are not limited to, our historical loss experience and projected loss development factors as compiled in an annual actuarial study. Related self-insurance accruals include amounts related to the liability for reported claims and an estimated accrual for claims incurred but not reported. Our workers’ compensation liability is discounted at 3.47% and 4.06% at December 31, 2009, and 2008, respectively, which were determined by using a GAAP-based risk-free rate based on future payment streams. Workers’ compensation benefit obligation on an undiscounted basis is $686 million and $713 million as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Accounting Standard Updates
          The Financial Accounting Standards Board has issued new accounting standards which are not effective until after December 31, 2009. For further discussion of new accounting standards, see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 3.”
          Accounting Standards Updates not effective until June 30, 2010 are not expected to have a significant effect on our unaudited condensed consolidated financial position or results of operations.

76


Table of Contents

BUSINESS
Our Company
          For more than a century, we have been designing, building, overhauling and repairing a wide variety of ships primarily for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard. We are the nation’s sole industrial designer, builder and refueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the sole supplier and builder of amphibious assault and expeditionary warfare ships to the U.S. Navy, the sole builder of National Security Cutters for the U.S. Coast Guard, one of only two companies currently capable of designing and building nuclear-powered submarines for the U.S. Navy and one of only two companies that builds the U.S. Navy’s current fleet of DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. We build more ships, in more ship types and classes, than any other U.S. naval shipbuilder. We are also one of the nation’s leading full-service systems providers for the design, engineering, construction and life cycle support of major programs for the surface ships of, and a leading non-governmental provider of fleet support and maintenance services for, the U.S. Navy. With broad product capabilities, technologically advanced facilities and an experienced workforce of shipbuilders, we believe we are poised to continue to support the long-term objectives of the U.S. Navy to adapt and respond to a complex, uncertain and rapidly changing national security environment.
          Our primary areas of business include the design, construction, repair and maintenance of nuclear-powered ships, such as aircraft carriers and submarines, and non-nuclear ships, such as surface combatants, expeditionary warfare/amphibious assault and coastal defense surface ships, as well as the overhaul and refueling of nuclear-powered ships.
          The credit quality of our primary customer (the U.S. Government), the long life cycle of our products, our significant contracted backlog, our state-of-the-art facilities and the alignment of our products to the 30-Year Plan assist us in forecasting our near- and long-term business plans that we believe provide us with a measure of financial stability and predictability.
          Our three major shipyards are currently located in Newport News, Virginia, Pascagoula, Mississippi and Avondale, Louisiana.
          We manage our business in two segments: Newport News, which includes all of our nuclear ship design, construction, overhaul and refueling businesses, and Gulf Coast, which includes our non-nuclear ship design, construction, repair and maintenance businesses.
          Newport News
          Through our Newport News shipyard, we are the sole supplier of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to the U.S. Navy. We delivered the last of the ten-ship CVN-68 Nimitz-class, CVN-77 USS George H.W. Bush, on May 11, 2009. In 2008, we were awarded a $5.1 billion contract for the detail design and construction of the first ship of the CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford-class, the next generation of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, which is scheduled for delivery in 2015. In 2009, we were also awarded construction preparation contracts totaling $451 million for the second CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, CVN-79 (unnamed). The duration of this initial CVN-79 award is two years plus a one-year option. The 30-Year Plan includes the award of a new aircraft carrier construction contract every five years.
          Through a unique teaming agreement with Electric Boat that provides for approximate equality of work allocated between the parties, with Electric Boat as prime contractor and us as a principal subcontractor, we provide SSN-774 Virginia-class nuclear fast attack submarines. SSN-774 Virginia-class submarine construction contracts have been awarded to the NGSB and Electric Boat team in blocks. Block I was awarded in 1998 and consisted of four submarines, Block II was awarded in 2003 and consisted of six submarines, and Block III was awarded in 2008 and consisted of eight submarines. We and Electric Boat have delivered the first seven submarines of the class (all four submarines from Block I and three submarines from Block II), have another five submarines under construction (the remaining three submarines of Block II and the first two submarines of Block III) and have been contracted to deliver an additional six submarines (the remaining six submarines of Block III). Based on expected build rates, the last Block III SSN-774 Virginia-class submarine is scheduled for delivery in 2018. We are also investing in our facilities to support the increase in production rate from one to two SSN-774 Virginia-class submarines per year beginning in 2011. Additionally, we have begun working with Electric Boat on the initial design phase for the SSBN(X) Ohio-class Submarine Replacement Program. We also have a robust submarine engineering department that provides planning yard services to the U.S. Navy for its other two classes of nuclear-powered submarines, the Los Angeles-class and the Seawolf-class.
          We are the exclusive provider of RCOH services for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and a leading non-governmental provider of fleet maintenance services to the U.S. Navy. In 2009, we were awarded a contract for up to $2.2 billion for the RCOH of CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt, which is scheduled for redelivery to the U.S. Navy in 2013. In

77


Table of Contents

2010, we were also awarded a three-year $678 million planning contract (an initial award of $79 million with two one-year options) for the RCOH of CVN-72 USS Abraham Lincoln. RCOH execution contracts are awarded approximately every four years. Additionally, we are currently building a facility at our Newport News shipyard for the inactivation of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the contract for the first of which, CVN-65 USS Enterprise, is expected to be awarded in 2013.
          We leverage our nuclear capabilities in non-shipbuilding programs as well. For example, we are working with our joint venture partner, AREVA NP, to prepare for the manufacture of heavy components to support civilian nuclear power plant construction work. We are also working with several other joint venture partners for the U.S. Department of Energy (the “DoE”) on environmental management and operations projects at the Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina, and potentially at the Idaho National Laboratory, near Idaho Falls, Idaho. We believe these programs allow us to utilize our unique nuclear expertise to take advantage of opportunities to provide niche services in our areas of core competencies.
          The table below sets forth the primary product lines in our Newport News segment:
                             
 
 
Newport News Programs
 
       
Program
   
Program
   
Contract
   
Funding
 
        Name     Description     Overview     Overview  
 
(IMAGE)
   
Carrier New
Construction
CVN-78 Gerald R.
Ford
-class
   
     New aircraft carrier for the 21st century

     Increased warfighting capabilities

     New propulsion plant

     Reduced ship manning

     Focused on operating cost reduction

     Designed for modular construction
   
     Cost plus incentive fee

     Sole source

     Incentivized capital investment under the planning contract

     8-year design,
7.5-year construction
   
     New construction contract expected to be awarded approximately every 5 years
 
 
(IMAGE)
   
Carrier RCOH
   
     Complex overhaul of the ship’s machinery and equipment

     Refueling of both of the ship’s reactors

     Significant renovation and modernization work
   
     Cost plus incentive fee

     Sole source

     3-year advanced planning

     Approximately
3.5-year overhaul execution
   
     RCOH Execution contracts expected to be awarded approximately every 4 years
 
 

78


Table of Contents

                             
 

(IMAGE)
   
Submarine New Construction SSN-774 Virginia-class and Fleet Support
   
     Post-Cold War design focused on maneuverability, stealth, warfighting capability and affordability

     Designed for modular construction

     Constructed under a teaming agreement with Electric Boat

     Planning yard services for Los Angeles-class and Seawolf-class
   
     Fixed price incentive

     Sole source to joint production arrangement

     Incentivized capital investment

     Multi-ship buys

     5-year construction
   
     Rate increasing from 1 to 2 annually in 2011

     7 delivered, 11 additional in program backlog

     Block IV expected to include 9 submarines with anticipated award at the end of 2013
 
 
          The table below sets forth the potential future programs in our Newport News segment:
                 
 
 
Newport News Potential Future Programs
 
       
Program
       
        Name     Program Description  
 

(IMAGE)
   
Carrier Inactivation
   
     CVN-65 inactivation expected to begin in 2013

     End-of-life nuclear reactor defueling

     Inactivation of ship systems, equipment and machinery

     4-year execution

     Contracts for Nimitz-class carriers expected to be awarded approximately every 4 years beginning in 2023
 
 

(IMAGE)
   
Ohio-class Replacement Program
   
     Anticipated to begin in 2019

     30-Year Plan includes 12 SSBN(X) submarines

     NGSB currently acting as subcontractor in design of SSBN(X)
 
 

(IMAGE)
   
Energy
   
     AREVA Newport News: Manufacturing heavy reactor components

     DoE: Site management and operations

     Newport News Industrial
 
 
          Gulf Coast
          Our Gulf Coast shipyards design and construct surface combatant and amphibious assault/expeditionary warfare ships for the U.S. Navy and coastal defense surface ships for the U.S. Coast Guard. We are the sole supplier and builder of amphibious assault/expeditionary warfare ships (LHA, LHD and LPD) to the U.S. Navy. We are currently constructing four

79


Table of Contents

LPD-17 San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships: LPD-22 San Diego (scheduled for delivery in 2011) and LPD-24 Arlington (scheduled for delivery in 2011) in our Pascagoula, Mississippi shipyard, and LPD-23 Anchorage (scheduled for delivery in 2012) and LPD-25 Somerset (scheduled for delivery in 2012) in our Avondale shipyard. Long-lead procurement is currently underway for LPD-26. As we complete work on LPD-23 Anchorage and LPD-25 Somerset, we intend to wind down our construction activities at Avondale, our Louisiana shipyard, and two Louisiana components facilities and consolidate all Gulf Coast construction into our Mississippi facilities. We believe that consolidation in Pascagoula would allow us to realize the benefits of serial production, reduce program costs on existing contracts and make future vessels more affordable, thereby reducing overhead rates and realizing cost savings for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard. We are also exploring the potential for alternative uses of the Avondale facility by new owners, including alternative opportunities for the workforce there. We expect that process to take some time.
          In 2009, construction of the LHD-1 Wasp-class amphibious assault ships was concluded with the delivery of LHD-8 USS Makin Island, and the first ship of the follow-on class of large-deck amphibious assault ships, LHA-6 America, is currently under construction and we expect to deliver it in 2013. Long-lead procurement is currently underway for LHA-7.
          We are one of only two companies that build the U.S. Navy’s current fleet of DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, a program for which the U.S. Navy recently decided to restart production. In July 2010, we delivered the DDG-107 Gravely to the U.S. Navy, and at present, we are completing work on DDG-110 William P. Lawrence (scheduled for delivery in December 2010). Long-lead procurement is currently underway for DDG-113.
          We are also constructing the composite superstructure of DDG-1000 Zumwalt and DDG-1001 Michael Monsoor.
          For the U.S. Coast Guard, we are currently constructing NSC-3 Stratton (scheduled for delivery in 2011) for the National Security Cutter program, providing advanced and operationally efficient deepwater capabilities for the U.S. Coast Guard. Long lead procurement is underway for NSC-4 Hamilton.
          Additionally, we provide fleet maintenance and modernization services to the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard fleets. On any given day, over 600 employees of our wholly owned subsidiary AMSEC are on board U.S. Navy ships, assessing equipment conditions, modernizing systems and training sailors. Through our wholly owned subsidiary, CMSD, a Master Ship Repair Contractor, we provide ship repair, regular overhaul and selected restricted availability services (pierside or in customer’s drydocks) for the U.S. Navy. We also perform emergent repair for the U.S. Navy on all classes of ships.
          In 2009, our Gulf Coast shipyards began implementation of a new management approach, the Gulf Coast Operating System, focused on better organizing and managing the construction of the ships we build. Through the Gulf Coast Operating System, we believe program managers will be better able to confirm that a ship is adhering to our newly developed standardized performance metrics, and to assure that we are providing high quality products in a safe, timely and cost-effective manner.

80


Table of Contents

          The table below sets forth the primary product lines in our Gulf Coast segment:
                             
 
 
Gulf Coast Programs
 
       
Program
   
Program
   
Contract
   
Funding
 
        Name     Description     Overview     Overview  
 

(IMAGE)
   
DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer
   
     Most advanced state-of-the-art surface combatant in the fleet

     62-Ship Program/ 28 awarded to us
   
     Fixed price incentive

     4-year construction
   
     32 additional DDG-51s/Future Surface Combatants expected for procurement by 2031

     Long lead time and material contract awarded for DDG-113
 
 

(IMAGE)
   
LPD-17 San Antonio-class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship
   
     Transport and land 700 to 800 Marines, their equipment and supplies

     Supports amphibious assault, special operations
   
     Fixed price incentive

     4.5-year construction
   
     5 delivered (LPD 17–21), 4 under construction (LPD 22–25)

     Long lead time and material contract awarded for LPD-26
 
 

(IMAGE)
   
LHA-6 America-class Next Generation Amphibious Ship for Joint Operations
   
     Navy’s largest warfare ship for joint operations

     Gas turbines

     All electric auxiliaries
   
     Fixed price incentive

     5-year construction

   
     LHA-6 under construction

     Long lead time and material contract awarded for LHA-7
 
 
(IMAGE)
   
National Security Cutter (Legend Class)
   
     Largest/most capable of the U.S. Coast Guard’s new multi-mission cutters

     Twin-screw propulsion

     Two hangars/large flight deck
   
     Cost plus incentive fee (NSC 1–3)

     3-year construction
   
     Plan for a total of 8 ships

     2 delivered (NSC-1, 2), 1 under construction (NSC-3)

     Long lead time and material contract awarded for NSC-4
 
 

81


Table of Contents

          The table below sets forth a potential future program in our Gulf Coast segment:
                 
 
 
Gulf Coast Potential Future Program
 
       
Program
       
        Name     Program Description  
 

(IMAGE)
   
LSD(X) Amphibious Dock Landing Ship
   
     Expected to begin in 2017

     30-Year Plan calls for 12 LSD(X) ships (one every other year)

     4-year construction
 
 
History
          Prior to its purchase by Northrop Grumman in 2001, the Newport News shipyard was the largest independent shipyard in the United States. Newport News was built in 1886 to repair ships servicing coal and train facilities in Hampton Roads, Virginia. By 1897, Newport News had built its first three boats for the U.S. Navy. In 1968 Newport News merged with the Tenneco Corporation, and in 1996 was spun-off to form its own corporation, Newport News Shipbuilding.
          Our Gulf Coast operations are centered around our Pascagoula, Mississippi and Avondale, Louisiana shipyards. The Pascagoula shipyard was founded in 1938 as the Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation (“Ingalls Shipbuilding”). Ingalls Shipbuilding originally began building commercial ships, but in the 1950s shifted its focus to building ships for the U.S. Navy. In 1961, Ingalls Shipbuilding was purchased by Litton, an electronics company building navigation, communications and electronic warfare equipment. In 1999, Litton also acquired Avondale Industries. Organized in 1938, Avondale Industries first began building ocean-faring ships in the 1950s. From 1959 to 1985, Avondale Industries operated as a subsidiary of Ogden Corporation. In 2001, Northrop Grumman acquired Litton. Ingalls Shipbuilding and Avondale Industries became part of Northrop Grumman Ship Systems.
          In January 2008, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems was realigned with Newport News into a single operating segment called Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding.
          New Ships, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware on August 4, 2010. Our corporate headquarters are located in             .
Defense Industry Overview
          The United States faces a complex, uncertain and rapidly changing national security environment. The defense of the United States and its allies requires the ability to respond to constantly evolving threats, terrorist acts, regional conflicts and cyber attacks, responses to which are increasingly dependent on early threat identification. National responses to such threats can require unilateral or cooperative initiatives ranging from dissuasion, deterrence, active defense, security and stability operations, or peacekeeping. We believe that the U.S. Government will continue to place a high priority on the protection of its engaged forces and citizenry and on minimizing collateral damage when force must be applied in pursuit of national objectives.
          The United States’ engagement in combating terrorism around the world, coupled with the need to modernize U.S. military forces, has driven DoD funding levels since 2001. In February 2010, the DoD released its QDR, a legislatively mandated review of military strategy and priorities that shapes defense funding over the ensuing four years. The QDR emphasized four key strategic priorities: prevailing in today’s wars, preventing and deterring conflict, preparing to defeat adversaries in a wide range of contingencies, and preserving and enhancing the All-Volunteer Force. These priorities combined with supporting key joint mission requirements helped shape the U.S. Navy’s 30-Year Plan.
          We expect that the nation’s engagement in a multi-front, multi-decade struggle will require an affordable balance between investments in current missions and investments in new capabilities to meet future challenges. The DoD faces the additional challenge of recapitalizing equipment and rebuilding readiness at a time when the DoD is pursuing modernization of its capabilities as well as reducing overhead and inefficiencies. The DoD has made a commitment to use resources more effectively and efficiently to support and sustain the warfighter, and the DoD expects the annual defense

82


Table of Contents

budget to grow by a nominal one percent, after inflation, in the coming years. The fiscal year 2011 budget submitted by the President and currently under deliberation in Congress requests $548.9 billion in discretionary authority for the DoD base budget, representing a modest increase over the 2010 budget.
          The Pentagon’s five-year spending plan, also submitted to Congress in February 2010, reflects the slow, steady growth requirements set forth in the QDR. Through 2015, the base defense budget is expected to grow at low single-digit rates. Investment spending is also projected to display low-single-digit inflation-adjusted growth, with procurement funding for maturing programs growing and research and development funding for new programs declining over the period.
          In February 2010, the U.S. Navy released its 30-Year Plan, in which the U.S. Navy used the goals and strategies set forth in the QDR to identify the naval capabilities projected to meet the defense challenges faced by the nation in the next three decades. The 30-Year Plan uses, as a baseline, a 313-ship force that was first proposed by the U.S. Navy to Congress in 2006 to design a battle inventory to provide global reach; persistent presence; and strategic, operational and tactical effects expected of naval forces within reasonable levels of funding. The Chief of Naval Operations has stated that the 313-ship fleet is a “floor.” Major elements of the 30-Year Plan include:
    Shifting the procurement of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to five-year procurement centers, which will result in a steady-state aircraft carrier force of 11 CVNs throughout the 30 years;
 
    Truncating the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer program, restarting production of DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and continuing the Advanced Missile Defense Radar (“AMDR”) development efforts;
 
    Shifting to a single sea frame for the Littoral Combat Ship (“LCS”) and splitting its production between two shipyards in an effort to reduce the ship’s overall cost;
 
    Maintaining an adaptable amphibious landing force of approximately 33 ships;
 
    Transitioning to a Combat Logistics force composed of just two types of ships and expanding the size of the Joint High Speed Vessel Fleet;
 
    Defining U.S. Navy requirements for 48 fast attack submarines and four guided missile submarines to sustain strike capacity and a robust capability to covertly deploy special operations force personnel. Procurement of Virginia-class submarines will increase to two boats per year starting in 2011 and slow to one boat per year once full rate production of the SSBN(X) Ohio-class Submarine Replacement Program begins; and
 
    Projecting procurement of 276 ships over the next 30 years (198 combat ships and 78 logistics and support ships).
          The QDR has directed certain specific enhancements to U.S. forces and capabilities and a number of these enhancements present NGSB with substantial new competitive opportunities including:
    Exploitation of advantages in subsurface operations;
 
    U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy joint development of air-sea battle concepts to integrate air and naval force capabilities across all operational domains;
 
    Increased ballistic missile defense capabilities;
 
    Expanded future long-range strike capabilities;
 
    Expanded capacity of Virginia-class fast attack nuclear submarines for long-range strike; and
 
    U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force new joint cruise missile alternatives.
          The shipbuilding defense industry, as characterized by its competitors, customers, suppliers, potential entrants and substitutes, is unique in many ways. It is highly capital- and skilled labor-intensive. There are two major participants: us and General Dynamics, which together represent over 90 percent of the market and employ over 60,000 shipbuilders. The U.S. Navy, a large single customer with many needs and requirements, dominates the industry’s customer base and is served by a supplier base where competition is giving way to sole source providers. However, there are smaller shipyards entering the market to build the U.S. Navy’s new LCS. The U.S. Navy must compete with other national priorities, including other defense activities and entitlement programs, for a share of federal budget dollars.
          The DoD recently announced various initiatives designed to gain efficiencies, refocus priorities and enhance business practices used by the DoD, including those used to procure goods and services from defense contractors. The most recent initiatives are organized in five major areas: Affordability and Cost Growth; Productivity and Innovation; Competition; Services Acquisition; and Processes and Bureaucracy. These initiatives are still fairly new and the specific

83


Table of Contents

impacts on our industry will be understood better as the DoD implements them further. See “Risk Factors—The Department of Defense has announced plans for significant changes to its business practices that could have a material effect on its overall procurement process and adversely impact our current programs and potential new awards.”
Competitive Strengths
          We believe that we have the following key competitive strengths:
          We Have Long-Term Contracts with Visible Revenue Streams and Highly Probable Backlog Based on the U.S. Navy’s 30-Year Plan that Provide Us with Financial Predictability and Stability. Most of our contracts are long-term in nature with visible revenue streams. We estimate our backlog at December 31, 2010 to be $18 billion. At the end of 2009, total orders from the U.S. Government composed 99 percent of the total backlog. In connection with ships that we have constructed, we expect to continue our regular service and support, including RCOH of aircraft carriers and inactivation of aging nuclear aircraft carriers. For ships that may be built in the future, we intend to continue to pursue and obtain planning and design contracts with the U.S. Government. Thus, we believe we have a highly probable backlog associated with every stage of the life cycle for the ships we build. We believe these factors allow us to assess our financial performance for many years into the future, which contributes to our long-term stability.
          We Generate a Significant Amount of our Revenue from Sole Source Contracts. Most of our contracts are sole source contracts. We are the sole builder and refueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and the sole source supplier of amphibious assault and expeditionary warfare ships for the U.S. Navy. We are also teamed with Electric Boat as the sole builders of nuclear-powered submarines for the U.S. Navy. We are the sole provider of the National Security Cutter to the U.S. Coast Guard. Collectively, our sole source contracts accounted for 66 percent of our revenues in 2008 and 2009.
          We Are a Leader in the Shipbuilding Industry. We are one of the leading shipbuilding companies in the country, and the sole industrial designer, builder and refueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers for the U.S. Navy. We build more ships, in more types/classes, than any other U.S. naval shipbuilder. We are the only builder of amphibious assault and expeditionary warfare ships (LHA, LHD, LPD) for the U.S. Navy. We are one of only two companies in the United States capable of designing and building nuclear-powered submarines. We are also one of the nation’s leading full-service systems providers for the design, engineering, construction and life cycle support of major programs for the surface ships, and a leading non-governmental provider of fleet support and maintenance services, for the U.S. Navy. We are one of only two nuclear shipbuilders and the only company capable of constructing and refueling aircraft carriers. The design and construction of nuclear-capable facilities and the necessary nuclear expertise each represents significant barriers to entry into the nuclear-shipbuilding industry. Additionally, the cost of constructing new facilities and the challenges of hiring and training a qualified workforce represent additional barriers into the naval defense shipbuilding industry more generally.
          We Have Unique Facilities and Broad Manufacturing Capabilities. Our Newport News and Pascagoula shipyards are two of the most technically advanced in the world, with Newport News being the nation’s sole industrial designer, builder and refueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and one of only two shipyards capable of designing and building nuclear-powered submarines for the U.S. Navy, and Pascagoula being a shipyard with a capability to simultaneously build several classes of ships. We own and operate the two largest cranes in the Western Hemisphere, the largest of which is at our Newport News shipyard and is capable of servicing two aircraft carriers at the same time, and the second largest at our Pascagoula, Mississippi shipyard. Our shipbuilding facility in Gulfport, Mississippi is the only shipbuilding facility in the United States that is a Composites Center of Excellence. Additionally, we have the Virginia Advanced Shipbuilding Carrier Integration Center (“VASCIC”) in Newport News, two Land Based Test Facilities, one in Newport News and one in Pascagoula, and the Center of Excellence for Modeling and Simulation (including the Aviation Simulation Integration Center and the Flexible Infrastructure Laboratory), which is housed at VASCIC.
          We Have an Experienced Management Team. Our senior management team has substantial experience in the management of public defense and shipbuilding companies. Our management is highly competent in the areas of project management, supply chain management and technology management. Great emphasis is placed on developing and aligning a dynamic leadership team to engage the workforce and drive high performance. Additionally, through our Enhancing Personal Leadership program, we leverage the experience and talent of our current management team to train our new and upcoming leaders to add to the overall depth and skill level of our management.
          We Have a Highly Trained, Dedicated and Qualified Workforce. Our highly trained and qualified workforce includes individuals specializing in 19 crafts and trades, including more than 7,500 engineers and designers and more than 1,000 employees with advanced degrees. Additionally, our workforce is composed of many third-, fourth- and fifth-generation shipbuilding employees. At June 1, 2010, we had 891 Master Shipbuilders, employees who have been with us or our predecessors for over 40 years. We operate two Apprentice Schools: one in Newport News, which trains over 750 apprentices each year in 19 trades and several advanced programs, and one in the Gulf Coast, which currently has nearly

84


Table of Contents

1,000 registered apprentices in its programs. We also provide ongoing training for all of our employees, providing over 60,000 individual training seats in 2009 and 64,000 in 2010 across our Newport News and Gulf Coast operations.
Our Strategy
          Our objectives are to maintain our leadership position in the U.S. naval shipbuilding industry and to deliver long-term value to our stockholders. To achieve these objectives, we utilize the following strategies:
          Strengthen and protect market position.
          Align our business to support the U.S. Navy’s 30-Year Plan. To ensure that we remain the U.S. Navy’s builder of choice on a broad range of ships, we intend to continue to align ourselves with the U.S. Navy to support its 30-Year Plan. We intend to continue to support the U.S. Navy in the design and construction of new ships, including the construction of an aircraft carrier and an amphibious assault ship approximately every five years, the restart of construction of DDG-51s and the increase in production rates of VCS to two submarines per year. Through investments in our workforce, processes and facilities, and through the streamlining of our operations, we intend to support continued construction of these core U.S. Navy programs, ensure quality construction and make ships more affordable. We plan to continue to work to keep our U.S. Navy programs fully funded in order to avoid their delay or cancellation.
          Ensure capabilities that support new U.S. Navy requirements. Through alignment with the U.S. Navy’s requirements in the 30-Year Plan, we intend to position ourselves as the provider of choice for new platforms and services related to our current core markets. In 2013, the U.S. Navy is expected to award the first aircraft carrier inactivation contract for CVN-65 USS Enterprise. We intend to complete construction of a new facility at our Newport News shipyard designed specifically for carrier inactivations, to ensure that we are the U.S. Navy’s choice for this and future carrier inactivations. We have also deployed our design and engineering talents and capabilities to support work as a subcontractor on the design of the SSBN (X) replacement for the aging Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, in anticipation of our participation as a subcontractor in the construction of the expected 12 new submarines under that program. Additionally, we intend to position ourselves as the builder of choice for the LSD(X), the next class of amphibious ship expected to be built as a follow-on to the LPD-17 and LHA-6 classes of ships, for which we are currently the sole source supplier.
          Streamline our operations and footprint to deliver more affordable ships. To maintain our leadership position, we intend to monitor our operations to determine where strategic investments or consolidation may be necessary to allow us to provide the U.S. Navy with the highest quality, most technologically advanced ships possible, on a cost-effective basis. For example, in light of the U.S. Navy’s 30-Year Plan requirements and the need to continue to make ships more affordable for our customers, we intend to consolidate our Gulf Coast operations and footprint to shift all future Gulf Coast ship construction work to our Pascagoula and Gulfport facilities in Mississippi. Our construction activities at the Avondale shipyard in Louisiana are expected to wind down in 2013 when work on LPD-25 is completed. Future ship construction work would be performed at our larger and more modern Pascagoula shipyard. With this consolidation, we believe that we are ensuring the long-term viability of our Gulf Coast operations by making them more cost competitive through increased throughput, continuity of production, single learning curves and workload efficiency gains. We also expect that this consolidation may reduce program costs on some existing contracts and make future vessels more affordable for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard.
          Execute well on all contracts.
          Improve performance in our Gulf Coast operations. We intend to continue to improve quality, cost and schedule performance in our Gulf Coast operations to address past operational issues and maintain our leadership position on non-nuclear surface ship construction. To accomplish this, our Gulf Coast operations have recently implemented a new management approach that is geared toward planning and managing our work in discreet phases to drive performance, accountability and predictability. Through the Gulf Coast Operating System, we believe program managers will be better able to confirm that a ship is adhering to our newly developed standardized performance metrics, and to assure that we are providing a quality product in a safe, timely and cost-effective manner. By organizing the work on each ship class to provide for the construction in a carefully managed sequence, our Gulf Coast Operating System ensures that each ship within a class is constructed in the same way each time to maximize learning from ship to ship. We intend to continue to utilize the Gulf Coast Operating System across the spectrum of our ships to improve both quality and efficiency of our building processes in all aspects of our design and construction activities, bringing together our engineers, craftspeople and technical workers. See “—Our Business—Gulf Coast.”
          Capture the benefits of serial production. We intend to seek opportunities to maximize the quality and affordability of our ships through serial production, while ensuring that we undertake “first-in-class” construction where such construction is expected to lead to additional serial production. For example, in 2009, we entered into an agreement with the U.S. Navy to shift work on DDG-1001 Michael Monsoor to General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (“BIW”), in exchange for new construction work on two ships in the new flight of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class, DDG-113 William S. Sims

85


Table of Contents

and DDG-114 Callaghan (the “Swap Agreement”). In 2008, the U.S. Navy announced that the more expensive DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class is being truncated to three ships. With the Swap Agreement, all three DDG-1000 ships will now be built at BIW, but we will remain the co-lead for the DDG-1000 design and will provide the integrated composite deckhouse and aft peripheral vertical launch system for all three ships. The U.S. Navy anticipates it will procure eight ships in the new flight of DDG-51s over the next five years. We believe the Swap Agreement allows us to benefit from serial production on DDG-51s and to reduce the programmatic complexity and risk of building the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 classes of destroyers simultaneously in one shipyard. We also believe the Swap Agreement eliminates the required investment for a single ship production run that would have occurred if we had built DDG-1001 Michael Monsoor.
          Deliver quality products on contract targets. We are focused on delivering quality products on contract schedule and cost targets for all current contracts, which we believe will protect our position as the leading U.S. naval shipbuilder and enhance our efforts to secure future contracts. We believe we must adhere to schedule and cost commitments and quality expectations on our current U.S. Navy contracts. Specifically, we must execute on our human capital strategy, create and sustain a first-time quality culture and capitalize on our supply chain management initiatives.
Our Business
          We design and construct nuclear and non-nuclear ships for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, including nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines, and non-nuclear surface combatants, amphibious assault ships and National Security Cutters. Additionally, through our shipyards and through our AMSEC and CMSD operations, we provide fleet maintenance and support services for the U.S. Navy’s ships. Our Newport News shipyard is also the source supplier for the overhaul and refueling of nuclear-powered ships for the U.S. Navy.
          Newport News
          The capabilities of our Newport News operations extend from our core nuclear business of designing and constructing nuclear-powered ships, such as aircraft carriers and submarines and the refueling and overhaul of such ships, to our secondary businesses, which are focused on the construction of heavy manufacturing equipment for commercial nuclear power facilities and the operations, management and cleanup of environmental hazard sites through the DoE’s cleanup programs. Our Newport News shipyard is one of the most technically advanced shipyards in the world. Our facilities are located on approximately 550 acres on the mouth of the James River, which adjoins the Chesapeake Bay. The shipyard has two miles of waterfront property and world-class facilities that include seven graving docks, a floating dry dock, two outfitting berths, five outfitting piers, a module outfitting facility and various other workshops. Our Newport News shipyard also has the largest drydock and the largest gantry crane in the Western Hemisphere.
Design, Construction and Refueling and Complex Overhaul of Aircraft Carriers
          Engineering, design and construction of U.S. Navy nuclear aircraft carriers are core to our operations. Aircraft carriers are the largest ships in the U.S. Navy’s fleet, with a weight (displacement) of about 90,000 tons. Since 1933, Newport News has delivered 30 aircraft carriers to the U.S. Navy, including all 11 ships currently deployed.
          The U.S. Navy’s newest carrier and the last of the CVN-68 Nimitz-class, CVN-77 USS George H.W. Bush, was delivered on May 11, 2009. Design work on the next generation carrier, the CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford-class has been underway for over eight years. The CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford-class incorporates transformational technologies including an enhanced flight deck with increased sortie rates, improved weapons movement, a redesigned island, a new nuclear propulsion plant design, flexibility to incorporate future technologies and reduced manning. In 2008, we were awarded a $5.1 billion contract for detail design and construction of the first ship of the class, CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford, which is scheduled for delivery in 2015. In 2009 we were also awarded construction preparation contracts totaling $451 million for the second CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, CVN-79 (unnamed). The duration of this initial CVN-79 award is two years plus a one-year option.
          We continue to be the sole source prime contractor for nuclear carrier RCOHs. Each RCOH takes over three years and accounts for approximately 35 percent of all maintenance and modernization in the service life of an aircraft carrier. RCOH services include propulsion (refueling of reactors, propulsion plant modernization, propulsion plant repairs), restoration of service life (dry docking, tank and void maintenance; hull shafting, propellers, rudders; piping repairs, replacement and upgrades; electrical systems upgrades; aviation capabilities) and modernization (warfare, interoperability and environmental compliance). We provide ongoing maintenance for the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier fleet through both RCOH and repair work. In 2009, the completion of the RCOH of CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson was followed by the arrival of CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt, which is expected to be redelivered to the U.S. Navy following its RCOH in early 2013.
          In March 2010, we were awarded a $678 million planning contract (an initial award of $79 million with two one-year options) for the RCOH of CVN-72 USS Abraham Lincoln. We believe that our position as the sole source designer and builder of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, as well as the fact that this work requires a highly trained and unique

86


Table of Contents

workforce, is capital-intensive and has high barriers to entry due to its nuclear requirements, strongly position us as the frontrunner for the award of future RCOH contracts on the current and future fleet of U.S. Navy carriers.
Carrier Inactivation
          We anticipate that in 2013 the U.S. Navy will contract with us, through our Newport News shipyard, to inactivate CVN-65 USS Enterprise, the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which was built by us and commissioned in 1961. We are currently building the facility to perform this work at our Newport News shipyard. Additionally, as other aircraft carriers in the naval fleet age, we believe that the U.S. Navy will require inactivation of those ships, and we plan to be positioned as the best choice for the U.S. Navy to grant that work. Aircraft carriers generally have a lifespan of approximately 50 years, and we believe the 11 carriers we have delivered and those we deliver going forward present a significant opportunity for us in the future with respect to both RCOH and inactivation. We expect funding for a carrier inactivation to be approximately $650 million.
Design and Construction of Nuclear-Powered Submarines
          We are one of only two U.S. companies capable of designing and building nuclear-powered submarines for the U.S. Navy. Since 1960, Newport News has delivered 56 submarines, including 42 fast attack and 14 ballistic submarines, to the U.S. Navy. Of the 53 nuclear-powered fast attack submarines currently in active service, 25 have been delivered by Newport News. Our nuclear submarine program, located at our Newport News shipyard, includes construction, engineering, design, research and integrated planning. In February 1997, Northrop Grumman and Electric Boat executed a teaming agreement to cooperatively build SSN-774 Virginia-class fast attack nuclear submarines. Under the present arrangement, we build the stern, habitability and machinery spaces, torpedo room, sail and bow, while Electric Boat builds the engine room and control room. Work on the reactor plant and the final assembly, test, outfit and delivery is alternated between us and Electric Boat with Electric Boat performing this work on the odd numbered deliveries and Newport News on the even numbered deliveries. The initial four submarines in the class were delivered in 2004, 2006 and 2008. With Electric Boat as the prime contractor and us as a principal subcontractor, the team was awarded a construction contract in August 2003 for the second block of six SSN-774 Virginia-class submarines, the first two of which were delivered in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Construction on the remaining four submarines of the second block is underway, with the last scheduled to be delivered in 2014. In December 2008, the team was awarded a construction contract for the third block of eight SSN-774 Virginia-class submarines. The multi-year contract allows us and our teammate to proceed with the construction of one submarine per year in 2010, increasing to two submarines per year from 2011 to 2013. The eighth submarine to be procured under this contract is scheduled for delivery in 2019.
SSBN(X) Ohio-Class Replacement Program
          The 30-Year Plan discusses the U.S. Navy’s intention to focus on the design and construction of replacement boats for the current aging Ohio-class ballistic and cruise missile submarines. The U.S. Navy has committed to designing a replacement class for the aging Ohio-class nuclear ballistic submarines, which were first introduced into service in 1981. The SSBN(X) Ohio-class Submarine Replacement Program represents a significant new program opportunity for us. Electric Boat is expected to lead the program. Although the contract is not yet negotiated, we expect to share in the design effort and our experience and well-qualified workforce position us for a potential role in the construction effort. The Ohio-class includes 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) and four cruise missile submarines (SSGN). The Ohio-class Submarine Replacement Program currently calls for 12 new ballistic missile submarines over a 15-year period for approximately $4 to $7 billion each. The first Ohio-class ballistic submarine is expected to be retired in 2029, meaning that the first replacement platform should be in commission by that time. The U.S. Navy has initiated the design process for this class of submarine, and we have begun design work as a subcontractor to Electric Boat. We expect to receive $1 billion over the next nine years on subcontract work on the SSBN(X) Ohio-class Submarine Replacement Program design. Construction is expected to begin in 2019 with the procurement of long-lead time materials in 2015. We believe that this program represents a significant opportunity for us in the future.
Energy
          Our DoE and Commercial Nuclear Programs leverage our core competencies in nuclear operations, program management and heavy manufacturing. We selectively partner with experienced industry leaders and we are significant participants in three joint ventures. Additionally, through our subsidiary Newport News Industrial Corporation (“NNI”), we are able to provide a wide range of services to the energy and petrochemical industries as well as government customers.
AREVA Newport News, LLC
          In October 2008, we announced the formation of a joint venture, AREVA Newport News, LLC, with AREVA NP to build a new manufacturing facility in Newport News, Virginia, to help supply heavy components to the civilian nuclear electrical power sector. AREVA Newport News is constructing a production facility for the manufacture of heavy

87


Table of Contents

commercial nuclear power plant components, expected to be completed in 2013. We are minority owners of the limited liability company that we formed pursuant to this joint venture.
DoE Programs
Savannah River
          In January 2008, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, our joint venture with Fluor Corporation and Honeywell International Inc., was awarded a five-year $4 billion contract for site management and operations of the DoE’s Savannah River Site located 12 miles south of Aiken, South Carolina. Work at the site includes management of a national laboratory and the cleanup of nuclear waste, both newly generated and backlogged and legacy wastes that exist at various facilities throughout the Savannah River Site. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions was awarded a stimulus contract for $1.4 billion to deactivate and remediate several reactors and sites at the Savannah River Site. We have a 34 percent ownership stake in Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC.
Idaho National Laboratory
          We, together with our joint venture partner CH2M Hill, bid on environmental management and cleanup projects for the DoE at the Idaho National Laboratory, near Idaho Falls, Idaho. In March 2010, the team was awarded a six-year $590 million contract, which award was protested and is under re-evaluation by the DoE. We have a 25 percent ownership stake in CH2M Hill Newport News Nuclear, LLC.
Newport News Industrial
          NNI was incorporated in 1965 and provides a wide range of support services to operating commercial nuclear power plants. In the 45 years since it was founded, NNI has expanded its capabilities, continuing to provide support for nuclear energy work, as well as for fossil power plants and other industrial facilities. NNI focuses on fabrication services, construction services, equipment services, technical services and product sales to its customers, which include both private industry as well as government entities such as NASA, the DoE and the DoD.
VASCIC
          Established in 1998 with state funding, VASCIC, located in Newport News, Virginia, is the only facility in the world devoted to furthering research for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines. VASCIC is a $58 million state-of-the-art facility where we conduct on-site warfare systems testing, training and laboratory research for the next generation of aircraft carriers, submarines and other ships. The center houses a team of systems experts who work together to develop and test advanced technology systems for aircraft carriers and other U.S. Navy ships, with a goal of reducing cost and increasing capability. VASCIC benefits the U.S. Navy and we believe represents a significant competitive advantage for us by developing future naval capabilities, reducing total ownership cost and facilitating technology transfer.
          Gulf Coast
          Through our Gulf Coast operations, we design and construct non-nuclear ships for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, including amphibious assault ships, surface combatants and National Security Cutters. We are the sole supplier of amphibious assault ships to the U.S. Navy and have built 26 of the 62-ship DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class of Aegis guided missile destroyers in active service. We are also the sole supplier of the large multi-mission National Security Cutters for the U.S. Coast Guard. Our Gulf Coast shipbuilding sites are located in Mississippi (Pascagoula and Gulfport) and Louisiana (Tallulah, Waggaman and Avondale). We intend to wind down our construction activities at Avondale, our Louisiana shipyard, in 2013 and two Louisiana components facilities by 2013 and consolidate all Gulf Coast construction into our Mississippi facilities. We are also exploring the potential for alternative uses of the Avondale facility by new owners, including alternative opportunities for the workforce there. We expect that process to take some time. Our various Gulf Coast facilities offer a collection of manufacturing capabilities with world-class advantages, such as the second largest gantry crane in the Western Hemisphere, the sole shipbuilding Composites Center of Excellence in the United States and a state-of-the-art Land Based Test Facility.
          When our current management team assumed responsibility for NGSB in 2008, they identified key operational issues impacting the Gulf Coast. By applying best practices and lessons learned from lead ship construction experience, they implemented a comprehensive program called the “Gulf Coast Operating System” to improve performance across the Gulf Coast. We believe this new system will result in significant improvement in Gulf Coast operational performance.
          The Gulf Coast Operating System organizes the construction of ships into 12-week phases with a discrete statement of work and cost and schedule goals. Through the Gulf Coast Operating System, program managers are able to ensure that a ship is adhering to our newly developed standardized performance metrics and that we are providing the highest possible quality products on a timely and cost-effective basis. The key features of the operating system are:

88


Table of Contents

    Ship class plans. These plans apply to an entire class of ships and enforce conformity within the class. Construction is scheduled at the lowest level of work and in the most efficient work sequence by craft, thereby ensuring consistent ship construction and maximum “learning” (i.e., cost reduction) from ship to ship.
 
    Phase commitment and “hot wash.” This is a process whereby cost, schedule and work completion goals for each 12-week phase are established prior to commencing work. These commitments are the baseline for performance measurement, providing improved visibility for each phase and monitoring actual versus committed performance on a weekly basis. This additional rigor around completing work in the scheduled phase allows for timely corrective actions within the phase if actual performance deviates from commitments and precludes additional cost associated with out-of-phase work. At the completion of the phase, a formal “hot wash” process occurs that documents actual performance versus commitments and enables adjustments to EACs and future phase plans. These EAC updates ensure timely adjustments are made and effectively reduce or eliminate surprises that traditionally accompany annual reviews of EAC.
 
    Performance measurement. Using standardized metrics, performance measurements have been institutionalized across the Gulf Coast to support the Operating System’s rhythm. The metrics include both lagging and leading indicators of performance. Each ship’s performance metrics are reviewed by management and staff weekly to allow for timely corrective actions and are also consolidated in an “Executive Dashboard” web-based visibility system for access by our entire management team.
 
    Risk/opportunity management. This process links a ship’s total risk and opportunity to phases of construction. Risk mitigation and opportunity plans are developed by phase and monitored to assess progress. The ship’s Program Manager owns the risk/opportunity process, which is administered by a centralized organization that ensures consistency throughout the portfolio.
 
    Labor resource plan (“LRP”). The LRP establishes employment requirements by craft or organization over the ship’s construction phase. The LRP integrates class plans and ship schedules with actual versus committed phase performance to establish hiring plans and the allocation of manning across ships. This integrated yard-wide labor resource plan enables an orderly proactive approach to hiring, overtime plans and movement of manning from ship to ship.
 
    Quarterly estimate at completion. The EAC process is performed on each ship and integrates performance across the Gulf Coast Operating System. It incorporates a bottom-up EAC process as well as top-down performance metrics to validate the program’s EAC. Each ship must address favorable or unfavorable results within the quarter and adjust (if necessary) program plan, EACs, and the program’s financials.
          We believe that the increased integration and efficient utilization of workers, schedule and cost transparency and management oversight of the shipbuilding process through our Gulf Coast Operating System will enable us to execute on our current contracts, strengthen our position with the U.S. Navy and allow us to continue to improve our operations in the future.
Amphibious Assault Ships
          We are the sole provider of amphibious assault and expeditionary warfare ships for the U.S. Navy. Design, construction and modernization of the U.S. Navy Large Deck Amphibious ships (LHA and LHD) are core to our Gulf Coast operations. In 2009, construction of LHD-1 Wasp-class multipurpose amphibious assault ships was concluded with the delivery of LHD-8 USS Makin Island. In 2007, we were awarded the construction contract for LHA-6 America, the first in a new class of enhanced amphibious assault ships designed from the keel up to be an aviation optimized Marine assault platform. The first ship of the LHA-6 America-class is currently under construction and we expect to deliver it in 2013. The LHA is a key component of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps requirement for 11 Expeditionary Strike Groups/Amphibious Readiness Groups.
          The LPD program is one of our Gulf Coast operations’ two long-run production programs where we have an opportunity to take advantage of cost reductions due to learning ship-over-ship. We are currently constructing four LPD-17 San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships: LPD-22 San Diego (scheduled for delivery in 2011) and LPD-24 Arlington (scheduled for delivery in 2011) in our Pascagoula, Mississippi shipyard, and LPD-23 Anchorage (scheduled for delivery in 2012) and LPD-25 Somerset (scheduled for delivery in 2012) in our Avondale shipyard. Additionally, a long lead time material contract for LPD-26 John P. Murtha was awarded in June 2009.
          As we complete work on LPD-23 Anchorage and LPD-25 Somerset, we intend to wind down our construction activities at Avondale, our Louisiana shipyard, in 2013 and two Louisiana components facilities (Waggaman and Tallulah) by 2013 and consolidate all Gulf Coast construction into our Mississippi facilities. We believe that this consolidation will allow our Gulf Coast shipbuilding decreased fixed overhead expenses, provide improved facility utilization and a more

89


Table of Contents

cost-efficient construction process and allow us to centralize our shipbuilding learning and realize the benefits of serial production. We expect that consolidation of operations in Pascagoula and Gulfport would reduce program costs on existing contracts and make future vessels more affordable, thereby reducing rates and realizing cost savings for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard. We are also exploring the potential for alternative uses of the Avondale facility by new owners, including alternative opportunities for the workforce there. We expect that process to take some time.
Surface Combatants
          We are a design agent for and one of only two companies that constructs the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers, as well as major components for the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class of land attack destroyers. We previously delivered 27 DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to the U.S. Navy and were awarded a long lead time material contract for a restart of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class in December 2009. In July 2010, we delivered the DDG-107 Gravely to the U.S. Navy, and, at present, we are completing construction on DDG-110 William P. Lawrence (scheduled for delivery in December 2010). Our participation in the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyers program includes detailed design and construction of the ships’ integrated composite deckhouses, as well as portions of the ships’ aft peripheral vertical launch systems. The U.S. Navy expects to build three DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers. At our Gulfport, Mississippi shipyard, which is a Composites Center of Excellence, we are currently constructing the composite superstructure of DDG-1000 Zumwalt and DDG-1001 Michael Monsoor.
          As set forth in the 30-Year Plan, the U.S. Navy has decided to truncate the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class program and restart the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer production line. As a result of that determination, in December 2009, we were awarded a $171 million long lead contract for the next ship in the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class. We anticipate that the DoD will award the construction contract for DDG-113 William S. Sims in the fourth quarter of 2010 and the construction contract for DDG-114 Callaghan in 2012. We intend to be the U.S. Navy’s contractor of choice for the construction of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class ships.
National Security Cutter
          We are a significant participant, along with Lockheed Martin, in the U.S. Coast Guard’s Deepwater Modernization Program. This program is designed to replace aging and operationally expensive ships and aircraft used to conduct missions in excess of 50 miles from the shoreline. The flagship of this program is the NSC, a technologically advanced multi-mission platform designed and built by us. This type of cutter meets or exceeds traditional U.S. Coast Guard mission requirements as well as counter-terrorism requirements. In 2006, ICGS, a joint venture between us and Lockheed Martin was awarded a 43-month extension of the original design and construction contract awarded to the joint venture for the Deepwater Modernization Program. The first National Security Cutter, NSC-1 USCGC Bertholf, was delivered to the U.S. Coast Guard in 2008 followed by NSC-2 USCGC Waesche in 2009. Currently, NSC-3 Stratton is in construction and long lead procurement is underway for NSC-4 Hamilton. We believe that future NSC procurements will be contracted directly to us and not to the joint venture.
Fleet Support
AMSEC and Continental Maritime
          Fleet support provides broad comprehensive life-cycle services, including depot maintenance, modernization, repairs, logistics and technical support and planning yard services for a wide array of naval and commercial vessels through our AMSEC and CMSD subsidiaries. We have ship repair facilities in Newport News, Virginia, and San Diego, California, which are near the U.S. Navy’s largest homeports of Norfolk, Virginia and San Diego. AMSEC provides naval architecture and marine engineering, ship system assessments, maintenance engineering and logistics services to the U.S. Navy and commercial maritime industry from 28 locations nationwide and overseas. On any given day, over 600 of our AMSEC employees are on board U.S. Navy ships, assessing equipment conditions, modernizing systems and training sailors. Through CMSD, a Master Ship Repair Contractor, we provide ship repair, regular overhaul and selected restricted availability services (pierside or in customer’s drydocks) for the U.S. Navy. We also perform emergent repair for the U.S. Navy on all classes of ships.
Customers
          U.S. Government revenue accounted for approximately 99 percent of total revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and in 2009, 2008 and 2007. Of those revenues in 2009, 96 percent were from the U.S. Navy and 4 percent from the U.S. Coast Guard. While we are reliant upon the U.S. Government for substantially all of our business, we are also a sole source or significant supplier for a number of DoD programs. For example, we are the design agent and sole supplier for the nuclear aircraft carrier CVN-68 Nimitz-class and CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford-class, and together with our teammate Electric Boat, we are responsible for the construction of the entire SSN-774 Virginia-class of nuclear submarines. We are the builder of 28 of the original 62-ship program for DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class U.S. Navy destroyers and the builder of

90


Table of Contents

amphibious assault ships (LHA, LHD and LPD). In addition, we have built the largest multi-mission National Security Cutters for the U.S. Coast Guard.
Intellectual Property
          We incorporate advanced technologies and designs into our vessels. With more than 2,500 engineers, designers and technicians, we are at the forefront of new ship technologies.
Research and Development
          Our research and development activities primarily include independent research and development (“IR&D”) efforts related to government programs. IR&D expenses are included in general and administrative expenses and are generally allocated to U.S. Government contracts. IR&D expenses totaled approximately $21 million for each of the years 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Expenses for research and development required by contracts are charged directly to the related contracts.
          At VASCIC, we conduct on-site warfare systems testing, training and laboratory research for the next generation aircraft carriers, submarines and other ships. VASCIC serves as the focal point for the integration of ship systems and the application of cutting-edge technologies. It has a classified facility and an integration area that allows for research and development related to setup and testing of electronic as well as hull, mechanical and electrical systems prior to introducing new equipment on board a ship. It also has modeling and simulation capability allowing for visualization using 3-D displays. See “—Our Business—VASCIC.”
Governmental Regulation and Supervision
          Our business is affected by numerous laws and regulations relating to the award, administration and performance of U.S. Government contracts. See “Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business.”
          We operate in a highly regulated environment and are routinely audited and reviewed by the U.S. Government and its agencies such as the U.S. Navy’s Supervisor of Shipbuilding, the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the Defense Contract Management Agency. These agencies review our performance under our contracts, our cost structure and our compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards, as well as the adequacy of, and our compliance with, our internal control systems and policies. Systems that are subject to review include but are not limited to our accounting systems, purchasing systems, billing systems, property management and control systems, cost estimating systems, earned value management systems, compensation systems and management information systems. Any costs found to be unallowable or improperly allocated to a specific contract will not be reimbursed or must be refunded if already reimbursed. If an audit uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, which may include termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines and suspension, or prohibition from doing business with the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government also has the ability to decrement payments when it deems systems subject to its review to be inadequate.
          In addition, the U.S. Government generally has the ability to terminate contracts, in whole or in part, with little to no prior notice, for convenience or for default based on performance. In the event of termination for the government’s convenience, contractors are normally protected by provisions covering reimbursement for costs incurred on the contracts and profit on those costs, but not for anticipatory profit on the work that was terminated. Termination resulting from our default could expose us to various liabilities, including but not limited to excess reprocurement costs, and could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete for contracts. See “Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business.”
          In 2009, Congress passed legislation to improve the organization and procedures of the DoD for the acquisition of major weapons systems, including shipbuilding and maritime systems. This legislation, the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, requires the DoD to develop mechanisms to address cost, schedule and performance in establishing program requirements. As acquisition reform progresses, we will continue to anticipate and respond to the actions of the Pentagon and Congress to determine their impact on our operations.
          U.S. Government contractors must comply with a myriad of significant procurement regulations and other requirements. Contracting with the U.S. Government may result in our filing of Requests for Equitable Adjustments (“REAs”) in connection with government contracts. REAs represent requests for the U.S. Government to make appropriate adjustments to aspects of a contract including pricing, delivery schedule, technical requirements or other affected terms, due to changes in the original contract requirements and resulting delays and disruption in contract performance for which the U.S. Government is responsible. REAs are prepared, submitted and negotiated in the ordinary course of business, and large REAs are not uncommon at the conclusion of both new construction and overhaul activities. Such REAs are not considered claims under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, although they may be converted to such claims if good faith negotiations are unproductive.

91


Table of Contents

          In cases where there are multiple suppliers, contracts for the construction and conversion of U.S. Navy ships and submarines are generally subject to competitive bidding. In evaluating proposed prices, the U.S. Navy sometimes requires that each bidder submit information on pricing, estimated costs of completion and anticipated profit margins in order to assess cost realism. The U.S. Navy uses this and other data to determine an estimated cost for each bidder. Under U.S. Government regulations, certain costs, including certain financing costs and marketing expenses, are not allowable contract costs. The U.S. Government also regulates the methods by which all costs, including overhead, are allocated to government contracts.
          Additional procurement regulations to which our contracts with various agencies of the U.S. Government and subcontracts with other prime contractors are subject include but are not limited to the Truth in Negotiations Act, the Procurement Integrity Act, the False Claims Act, Procurement Integrity Act, Cost Accounting Standards, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations promulgated under the Arms Export Control Act, the Close the Contractor Fraud Loophole Act and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Noncompliance found by any one agency may result in fines, penalties, debarment or suspension from receiving additional contracts with all U.S. Government agencies.
Raw Materials
          The most significant raw material we use is steel. Other materials used in large quantities include paint, aluminum, pipe, electrical cable and fittings. All of these materials are currently available in adequate supply from domestic and foreign sources. In connection with our government contracts, we are required to procure certain materials and component parts from supply sources approved by the U.S. Government. Generally, for all of our long-term contracts, we obtain price quotations for many of our materials requirements from multiple suppliers to ensure competitive pricing. We have not generally been dependent upon any one supply source; however, due largely to the consolidation of the defense industry, there are currently several components for which there is only one supplier. We believe that these sole source suppliers as well as our overall supplier base are adequate to meet our future needs. We have mitigated some supply risk by negotiating long-term agreements with a number of steel suppliers; such agreements are anticipated to be renegotiated in 2011. In addition, we have mitigated price risk related to steel purchases through certain contractual arrangements with the U.S. Government. We must continue our efforts to maintain sources for raw materials, fabricated parts, electronic components and major subassemblies. In this manufacturing and systems integration environment, effective oversight of subcontractors and suppliers is as vital to success as managing internal operations. While we have generally been able to obtain key raw materials required in our production processes in a timely manner, a significant delay in supply deliveries could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. See “Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business.”
Competition
          We primarily compete with General Dynamics and to a lesser extent with smaller shipyards, one or more of whom may be teamed with a large defense contractor. Intense competition related to programs, resources and funding, and long operating cycles are both key characteristics of our business and the defense industry. It is common in this industry for work on major programs to be shared among a number of companies. A company competing to be a prime contractor may, upon ultimate award of the contract to another party, turn out to be a subcontractor for the ultimate prime contracting party. It is not uncommon to compete for a contract award with a peer company and, simultaneously, perform as a supplier to or a customer of such competitor on other contracts. The nature of major defense programs, conducted under binding contracts, allows companies that perform well to benefit from a level of program continuity not common in many industries.
          We believe we are well positioned in the market. Because we are the only company currently capable of building and refueling the U.S. Navy’s nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, we believe we are in a strong competitive position to be awarded any contracts to build or refuel nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. We are the only builder of large deck amphibious assault and expeditionary warfare ships for the U.S. Navy, including LHD, LHA and LPD, and would be positioned to be awarded any future contracts for these types of vessels. Our success in the competitive shipbuilding defense industry depends upon our ability to develop, market and produce our products and services at a cost consistent with the U.S. Navy’s budget, as well as our ability to provide the people, technologies, facilities, equipment and financial capacity needed to deliver those products and services with maximum efficiency.
Environmental, Health and Safety
          Our manufacturing operations are subject to and affected by federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. We provide for the estimated cost to complete environmental remediation where we determine it is probable that we will incur such costs in the future in amounts we can reasonably estimate to address environmental impacts at currently or formerly owned or leased operating facilities, or at sites where we are named a Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or similarly designated by other environmental agencies. These estimates may change given the inherent difficulty in estimating environmental cleanup

92


Table of Contents

costs to be incurred in the future due to the uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, determination of legally responsible parties, and the status of laws, regulations and their interpretations.
          We assess the potential impact on our financial statements by estimating the range of reasonably possible remediation costs that we could incur on a site-by-site basis, taking into account currently available facts on each site as well as the current state of technology and prior experience in remediating contaminated sites. We review our estimates periodically and adjust them to reflect changes in facts and technical and legal circumstances. We record accruals for environmental cleanup costs in the accounting period in which it becomes probable we have incurred a liability and the costs can be reasonably estimated. We record insurance recoveries only when we determine that collection is probable and we do not include any litigation costs related to environmental matters in our environmental remediation accrual.
          We estimate that as of December 31, 2009, the probable future costs for environmental remediation sites is $3 million, which is accrued in other current liabilities in the consolidated statements of financial position. We record environmental accruals on an undiscounted basis. At sites involving multiple parties, we provide environmental accruals based upon our expected share of liability, taking into account the financial viability of other jointly liable parties. We expense or capitalize environmental expenditures as appropriate. Capitalized expenditures relate to long-lived improvements in currently operating facilities. We may have to incur costs in addition to those already estimated and accrued if other PRPs do not pay their allocable share of remediation costs, which could have a material effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We have made the investments we believe necessary to comply with environmental laws. Although we cannot predict whether information gained as projects progress will materially affect the estimated accrued liability, we do not anticipate that future remediation expenditures will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          We believe that we are in material compliance with all applicable environmental regulations, and historical environmental compliance costs have not been material to our business. However, on June 4, 2010, the EPA proposed new regulations at 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart DDDDD entitled “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters”. NGSB owns and operates five residual oil-fired industrial boilers for supplying process and building steam along with supplying high pressure steam to ships under construction. We believe that these boilers will be significantly adversely affected by these regulations, if adopted as proposed. The capital cost to replace these could be significant.
          We could be affected by future laws or regulations, including those enacted in response to climate change concerns and other actions known as “green initiatives.” We recently established an internal goal of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions during the next five years. To comply with current and future environmental laws and regulations and to meet this goal, we expect to incur capital and operating costs, but at this time we do not expect that such costs will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          With regard to occupational health and safety, the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair industry involves work with many hazardous materials and processes, and remains one of the most highly hazardous industry segments. According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair industry (SIC Code 3731) ranks among the highest in virtually every injury metric. Nevertheless, in terms of serious injuries at our operations, there have been six industrial related fatalities in the past six years, and none in the past two years. There are no outstanding OSHA investigations or violations, and our internal audit program seeks to assure that our OSHA compliance programs remain strong. In 1995, our Newport News, Virginia shipyard became the only shipyard to be awarded the Star Award from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Voluntary Protection Program (“OSHA VPP”). To earn this award, we joined efforts with our unions and supported the participation in the Voluntary Protection Program in which all parties help each other to make our shipyard a safer place to work. Since then, our Gulfport, Mississippi and Tallulah and Waggaman, Louisiana, facilities have all also been certified as OSHA VPP Star Sites. Additionally, our Avondale facility in New Orleans, Louisiana and our Continental Maritime facility in San Diego, California facilities have been certified as OSHA VPP Merit Sites.
          The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy and the DoD regulate and control various matters relating to nuclear materials that we handle. Subject to certain requirements and limitations, our government contracts generally provide for indemnity by the U.S. Government for costs arising out of or resulting from certain nuclear risks.
Employees
          We have approximately 39,000 employees. We are the largest industrial employer in Virginia and the largest private employer in Mississippi. Our workforce contains many third-, fourth- and fifth-generation shipbuilding employees. We employ individuals specializing in 19 crafts and trades, including more than 7,500 engineers and designers and more than 1,000 employees with advanced degrees. Employees who have been with us or our predecessors for over 40 years achieve the title of Master Shipbuilder. At June 1, 2010, we had 891 Master Shipbuilders (542 in Newport News, 349 in the Gulf Coast). Additionally, we employ nearly 6,200 veterans.

93


Table of Contents

          At our Newport News shipyard, we operate the Apprentice School, which trains over 750 apprentices each year in 19 trades and several advanced programs. Our Gulf Coast Apprentice School currently has nearly 1,000 registered apprentices in its programs. Apprentices are paid as full-time employees for the duration of their studies, and usually continue to work with us upon graduation. From nuclear pipe welders to senior executives, over 2,650 alumni of the Apprentice School at Newport News and over 1,775 alumni of our Gulf Coast Apprentice School continue to work with us.
          Approximately 50 percent of our employees are covered by a total of 10 collective bargaining agreements. We expect to re-negotiate each of our collective bargaining agreements between 2012 and 2014 as they approach expiration. It is not expected that the results of these negotiations will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We believe that our relationship with our employees is satisfactory.
Properties
          At December 31, 2009, we had operations in San Diego, California; Avondale (New Orleans), Tallulah, and Waggaman, Louisiana; Gulfport and Pascagoula, Mississippi; and Hampton, Newport News and Suffolk, Virginia. We also lease and/or own office buildings related to our operations in both Virginia Beach, Virginia and Washington, D.C.
          Newport News. Our facilities located in Newport News, Virginia are on approximately 550 acres that we own at the mouth of the James River, which adjoins the Chesapeake Bay, the premier deep water harbor on the east coast of the United States. Our Newport News shipyard is one of the most technically advanced in the world. It is the nation’s sole designer, builder and refueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and one of only two companies capable of designing and building nuclear-powered submarines for the U.S. Navy. The shipyard also provides services for a wide array of naval and commercial vessels. Its facilities include seven graving docks, a floating dry dock, two outfitting berths, five outfitting piers, a module outfitting facility and various other shops. Dry Dock 12 is the largest in the Western Hemisphere, and has been extended to 662 meters. Dry Dock 12 is serviced by a 1,050 metric ton capacity gantry crane that spans the dry dock and work platen.
          Our Newport News shipyard also has a wide variety of other facilities including an 11-acre all weather on-site steel fabrication shop, accessible by both rail and transporter, a module outfitting facility which enables us to assemble a ship’s basic structural modules indoors and on land, machine shops totaling 300,000 square feet, and its own school which provides a four-year accredited apprenticeship program that trains shipbuilders.
          We believe that substantially all of our plants and equipment are, in general, well maintained and in good operating condition. They are considered adequate for present needs and, as supplemented by planned construction, are expected to remain adequate for the near future.
          Gulf Coast. Our five sites across the Gulf Coast are located in Pascagoula and Gulfport, Mississippi and Avondale, Harahan and Tallulah, Louisiana. In addition, our facilities in San Diego, California and Virginia Beach, Virginia are considered part of our Gulf Coast operations.
          Our Pascagoula shipyard is a main provider of major surface warships to the U.S. Navy and has modernized dozens of other naval ships. It is the only U.S. shipyard in recent years to be developing and building six different classes of ships for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard. Our facilities in Pascagoula sit on approximately 800 acres on the banks of the Pascagoula River where it flows into the Mississippi Sound. We lease the west bank of our Pascagoula facility from the State of Mississippi pursuant to a 99-year lease (consisting of a 40-year base term plus six additional option terms). We anticipate continued use of this facility for the remaining currently anticipated 56 years on the lease and beyond.
          Our components facility in Gulfport, Mississippi, is on approximately 120 acres and is the only shipbuilding facility in the United States to be designated a Composites Center of Excellence. The facility is currently building the state-of-the-art DDG-1000 composite deckhouses. We believe that this unique composites capability, coupled with strong alliances with numerous premier universities and suppliers, positions us to take advantage of any shift toward lighter-weight topside composite structures in U.S. Naval and U.S. Coast Guard applications.
          Our Avondale shipyard is on approximately 268 acres located on the banks of the Mississippi River approximately 12 miles upriver from downtown New Orleans. Among the most versatile shipyards in the United States, this site has the capacity to manufacture large amphibious assault and military and commercial transport vessels, and includes three outfitting docks totaling more than 6,000 linear feet. In addition to the shipyard, operations include the Maritime Technology Center of Excellence.
          Our Tallulah facility primarily manufactures components and engages in the subassembly of such components in its 115,000-square foot production shop. Our San Diego and Virginia Beach facilities provide fleet support services.

94


Table of Contents

          Our Waggaman facility is located three miles upriver from the Avondale shipyard and features an 81,625-square foot production facility that consists of a machine shop, a fabrication and assembly area, a piping production area, a warehouse and a paint booth.
          Our Gulf Coast operations continue to recover from the infrastructure and workforce impacts from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In August 2005, our shipyards in Louisiana and Mississippi sustained significant windstorm damage as a result of Hurricane Katrina, causing work and production delays. We incurred costs to replace or repair and improve destroyed and damaged assets, suffered losses under our contracts, and incurred substantial costs to clean up and recover our operations. We invested significant capital to harden, protect and modernize our Pascagoula facilities, and to ensure the shipyard’s robustness. In 2008, our Gulf Coast shipyards were affected by Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike. As a result of Hurricane Gustav, our shipyards experienced a shut-down for several days and a resulting minor delay in ship construction throughout the yards; however, the storm caused no significant physical damage to the yards, we believe in part due to our successful hardening and improvement after Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Ike severely impacted a subcontractor’s operations in Texas. The subcontractor produced compartments for two of the LPD amphibious transport dock ships under construction at the Gulf Coast shipyards. As a result of the delays and cost growth caused by the subcontractor’s production delays, our operating income was reduced during the second half of 2008.
          We intend to wind down our construction activities at Avondale, our Louisiana shipyard, in 2013 and two Louisiana components facilities by 2013 and consolidate all Gulf Coast construction into our Mississippi facilities. We expect that consolidation of operations in Mississippi would reduce program costs on existing contracts and make future vessels more affordable, thereby reducing rates and realizing cost savings for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard. We are also exploring the potential for alternative uses of the Avondale facility by new owners, including alternative opportunities for the workforce there. We expect that process to take some time.
Legal Proceedings
          U.S. Government Investigations and Claims. Departments and agencies of the U.S. Government have the authority to investigate various transactions and operations of our company, and the results of such investigations may lead to administrative, civil or criminal proceedings, the ultimate outcome of which could be fines, penalties, repayments or compensatory or treble damages. U.S. Government regulations provide that certain findings against a contractor may lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracts or the loss of export privileges for a company or a division or subdivision. Suspension or debarment could have a material adverse effect on us because of our reliance on government contracts.
          In the second quarter of 2007, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a revocation of acceptance under the Deepwater Modernization Program for eight converted 123-foot patrol boats (the “vessels”) based on alleged “hull buckling and shaft alignment problems” and alleged “nonconforming topside equipment” on the vessels. We submitted a written response that argued that the revocation of acceptance was improper. The U.S. Coast Guard advised ICGS, which was formed by us and Lockheed Martin to perform the Deepwater Modernization Program, that it was seeking $96 million from ICGS as a result of the revocation of acceptance. The majority of the costs associated with the 123-foot conversion effort are associated with the alleged structural deficiencies of the vessels, which were converted under contracts with us and one of our subcontractors. In 2008, the U.S. Coast Guard advised ICGS that the U.S. Coast Guard would support an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice of ICGS and its subcontractors instead of pursuing its $96 million claim independently. The Department of Justice conducted an investigation of ICGS under a sealed False Claims Act complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and decided in early 2009 not to intervene at that time. On February 12, 2009, the Court unsealed the complaint filed by Michael J. DeKort, a former Lockheed Martin employee, against us, ICGS and Lockheed Martin Corporation, relating to the 123-foot conversion effort. On April 5, 2010, the District Court ruled on the defendants’ motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part. As to us, the District Court dismissed conspiracy claims and those pertaining to the C4ISR systems. The District Court denied the motion with respect to those claims relating to hull, mechanical and engineering work. Based upon the information available to us to date, we believe that we have substantive defenses to any potential claims but can give no assurance that we will prevail in this litigation.
          Based upon the available information regarding matters that are subject to U.S. Government investigations, we believe that the outcome of any such matters would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
          Litigation. We are party to various investigations, lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. Based on information available, we believe that the resolution of any of these various claims and legal proceedings would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

95


Table of Contents

          We are pursuing legal action against an insurance provider, Factory Mutual Insurance Company (“FM Global”), arising out of a disagreement concerning the coverage of certain losses related to Hurricane Katrina (see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 15”). Legal action was commenced against FM Global on November 4, 2005, which is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. In August 2007, the District Court issued an order finding that the excess insurance policy provided coverage for Katrina-related losses. In November 2007, FM Global filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s order. On August 14, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the earlier summary judgment order in favor of Northrop Grumman’s interest, holding that the FM Global excess policy unambiguously excludes damage from the storm surge caused by Hurricane Katrina under its “Flood” exclusion. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether the California efficient proximate cause doctrine affords coverage sought by the company under the policy even if the Flood exclusion of the policy is unambiguous. Northrop Grumman filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, or in the Alternative, for Panel Rehearing with the Ninth Circuit on August 27, 2008. On April 2, 2009, the Ninth Circuit denied Northrop Grumman’s Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District Court. On June 10, 2009, Northrop Grumman filed a motion seeking leave of court to file a complaint adding AON Risk Services, Inc. of Southern California (“AON”) as a defendant. On July 1, 2009, FM Global filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a determination that the California efficient proximate cause doctrine is not applicable or that it affords no coverage under the policy. On August 26, 2010, the District Court denied Northrop Grumman’s motion to add AON as a defendant to the case pending in federal court, finding that Northrop Grumman has a viable option to bring suit against AON in state court if it so chooses. Also on August 26, the District Court granted FM Global’s motion for summary judgment based upon California’s doctrine of efficient proximate cause, and denied FM Global’s motion for summary judgment based upon breach of contract, finding that triable issues of fact remained as to whether and to what extent we sustained wind damage apart from the storm surge that inundated our Pascagoula facility. We intend to continue to pursue the breach of contract litigation against FM Global and will consider whether to bring a separate action against AON in state court. Based on the current status of the litigation, no assurances can be made as to the ultimate outcome of this matter.
          However, if we are successful in the claim, the potential impact to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows would be favorable.
          During 2008, notification from Munich Re, the only remaining insurer within the primary layer of insurance coverage with which a resolution has not been reached, was received noting that it will pursue arbitration proceedings against Northrop Grumman related to approximately $19 million owed by Munich Re to NGRMI, a wholly owned subsidiary of Northrop Grumman, for certain losses related to Hurricane Katrina. Northrop Grumman was subsequently notified that Munich Re also will seek reimbursement of approximately $44 million of funds previously advanced to NGRMI for payment of claim losses of which Munich Re provided reinsurance protection to NGRMI pursuant to an executed reinsurance contract, and $6 million of adjustment expenses. We believe that NGRMI is entitled to full reimbursement of its covered losses under the reinsurance contract and has substantive defenses to the claim of Munich Re for return of the funds paid to date. If the matters are resolved in NGRMI’s favor, then NGRMI would be entitled to the remaining $19 million owed for covered losses and it would have no further obligations to Munich Re. Any payments to be made to NGRMI in connection with this matter would be for the benefit of our accounts, and payments to be made to Munich Re, if any, would be made by us.
          Additionally, we and our predecessors in interest are defendants in several hundred cases filed in numerous jurisdictions around the country wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos-containing materials on or associated with our premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by us. The cases allege various injuries including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma and other alleged asbestos-related conditions. In some cases, in addition to us, several of our former executive officers are also named defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to us for our liability and that of our former executive officers. Because of the varying nature of these actions, and based upon the information available to us to date, we believe we have substantive defenses in many of these cases but can give no assurance that we will prevail on all claims in each of these cases. We believe that the ultimate resolution of these cases will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. See “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 14.”

96


Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT
Our Directors and Executive Officers
          The following table sets forth certain information as of      , 2010, concerning certain of our executive officers, including a five-year employment history and any directorships held in public companies following the spin-off. We are in the process of identifying the individuals who will be additional executive officers as well as our directors following the spin-off, and we expect to provide details regarding these individuals in an amendment to this information statement.
             
Name   Age   Position(s)
 C. Michael Petters
    50      President and Chief Executive Officer
 Irwin Edenzon
    56      Vice President and General Manager – Gulf Coast Operations
 Matthew J. Mulherin
    50      Vice President and General Manager – Newport News Operations
 
 
 
 
 
 
          C. Michael Petters, President and Chief Executive Officer—Mr. Petters has been President of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding since 2008, when NGSB was formed, and was previously President of the Newport News sector. Since joining the Company in 1987, his responsibilities have included oversight of the Virginia-class submarine program, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier programs, aircraft carrier overhaul and refueling, submarine fleet maintenance, commercial and naval ship repair, human resources and business and technology development. Mr. Petters holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from the United States Naval Academy and a Master of Business Administration degree from the College of William and Mary.
          Irwin F. Edenzon, Vice President and General Manager – Gulf Coast Operations—Mr. Edenzon has been Sector Vice President and General Manager, Gulf Coast since 2008, when NGSB was formed, and he was previously Vice President for Technology Development and Fleet Support in Newport News. Mr. Edenzon oversaw Newport News’ Technical Engineering Division, Advanced Programs and Internal Research. Mr. Edenzon holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Criminal Justice, magna cum laude, from Rutgers University and a Master of Business Administration degree from Florida Atlantic University.
          Matthew J. Mulherin, Vice President and General Manager – Newport News Operations—Mr. Mulherin has been Sector Vice President and General Manager, Newport News since 2008. Mr. Mulherin most recently served as Vice President of Programs for the Newport News operations, where he successfully led the aircraft carrier design and construction programs, carrier refueling and overhaul programs and the submarine program. Mr. Mulherin holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech.
Structure of the Board of Directors
          Our board of directors will be divided into three classes that will be, as nearly as possible, of equal size. Each class of directors will be elected for a three-year term of office, and the terms are staggered so that the term of only one class of directors expires at each annual meeting. The terms of the Class I, Class II and Class III directors will expire in 2012, 2013 and 2014, respectively. The proposed Class I directors will include      , the proposed Class II directors will include      and the proposed Class III directors will include   .
Committees of the Board of Directors
          Following the spin-off, the standing committees of our board of directors will include an Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee and a Governance Committee each as further described below. Following our listing on the NYSE and in accordance with the transition provisions of the rules of the NYSE applicable to companies listing in conjunction with a spin-off transaction, each of these committees will, by the date required by the rules of the NYSE, be composed exclusively of directors who are independent. Other committees may also be established by the board of directors from time to time.
          Audit Committee. The members of the Audit Committee are expected to be      ,       and       . The Audit Committee will have the responsibility, among other things, to meet periodically with management and with both our

97


Table of Contents

independent auditor and internal auditor to review audit results and the adequacy of and compliance with our system of internal controls. In addition, the Audit Committee will appoint or discharge our independent auditor, and review and approve auditing services and permissible non-audit services to be provided by the independent auditor in order to evaluate the impact of undertaking such added services on the independence of the auditor. The responsibilities of the Audit Committee, which are anticipated to be substantially identical to the responsibilities of Northrop Grumman’s Audit Committee, will be more fully described in our Audit Committee charter. The Audit Committee charter will be posted on our website at www.      .com and will be available in print to any stockholder that requests it. By the date required by the transition provisions of the rules of the NYSE, all members of the Audit Committee will be independent and financially literate. Further, the board of directors has determined that      ,      and      possess accounting or related financial management expertise within the meaning of the NYSE listing standards and that each qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” as defined under the applicable SEC rules.
          Compensation Committee. The members of the Compensation Committee are expected to be         ,      and     . The Compensation Committee will oversee all compensation and benefit programs and actions that affect our senior executive officers. The Compensation Committee will also provide strategic direction for our overall compensation structure, policies and programs and will review senior officer succession plans. The Compensation Committee will review and recommend to the board of directors the compensation of directors. The responsibilities of the Compensation Committee, which are anticipated to be substantially identical to the responsibilities of Northrop Grumman’s Compensation Committee, will be more fully described in the Compensation Committee charter. The Compensation Committee charter will be posted on our website at www.      .com and will be available in print to any stockholder that requests it. Each member of the Compensation Committee will be a non-employee director and there are no Compensation Committee interlocks involving any of the projected members of the Compensation Committee.
          Governance Committee. The members of the Governance Committee are expected to be      ,      and      . The Governance Committee will be responsible for developing and recommending to the board of directors criteria for identifying and evaluating director candidates; identifying, reviewing the qualifications of and recruiting candidates for election to the board of directors; and assessing the contributions and independence of incumbent directors in determining whether to recommend them for reelection to the board of directors. The Governance Committee will also review and recommend action to the board of directors on matters concerning transactions with related persons and matters involving corporate governance and, in general, oversee the evaluation of the board of directors. The responsibilities of the Governance Committee, which are anticipated to be substantially identical to the responsibilities of Northrop Grumman’s Governance Committee, will be more fully described in the Governance Committee charter. The Governance Committee charter will be posted on our website at www.      .com and will be available in print to any stockholder that requests it.
          Director Independence. Our board of directors, upon recommendation of our Governance Committee, is expected to formally determine the independence of its directors following the spin-off. The board of directors of Northrop Grumman has affirmatively determined that the following directors, who are anticipated to be elected to our board of directors, are independent:         ,      and      . Our board of directors is expected to annually determine the independence of directors based on a review by the directors and the Governance Committee. No director will be considered independent unless the board of directors determines that he or she has no material relationship with us, either directly or as a partner, stockholder, or officer of an organization that has a material relationship with us. Material relationships can include commercial, industrial, banking, consulting, legal, accounting, charitable, and familial relationships, among others. To evaluate the materiality of any such relationship, the board of directors has determined it is in the best interests of the company to adopt categorical independence standards which will be set forth in the Corporate Governance Guidelines. The standards that will be relied upon by the board of directors in affirmatively determining whether a director is independent are composed, in part, of those objective standards set forth in the NYSE rules, which generally provide that
    A director who is an employee, or whose immediate family member (defined as a spouse, parent, child, sibling, father- and mother-in-law, son- and daughter-in-law, brother- and sister-in-law and anyone, other than a domestic employee, sharing the director’s home) is an executive officer of the company, would not be independent until three years after the end of such relationship.
 
    A director who receives, or whose immediate family member receives, more than $120,000 per year in direct compensation from the company, other than director and committee fees and pension or other forms of deferred compensation for prior services (provided such compensation is not contingent in any way on continued service) would not be independent until three years after ceasing to receive such amount.
 
    A director who is a partner of or employed by, or whose immediate family member is a partner of or employed by and personally works on the company’s audit, a present or former internal or external auditor of the company would not be independent until three years after the end of the affiliation or the employment or auditing relationship.

98


Table of Contents

    A director who is employed, or whose immediate family member is employed, as an executive officer of another company where any of the company’s present executives serve on the other company’s compensation committee would not be independent until three years after the end of such service or employment relationship.
 
    A director who is an employee, or whose immediate family member is an executive officer, of a company that makes payments to, or receives payments from, the company for property or services in an amount which, in any single fiscal year, exceeds the greater of $1 million, or 2 percent of such other company’s consolidated gross revenues, would not be independent until three years after falling below such threshold.
Compensation of Non-Employee Directors
          Following the spin-off, director compensation will be determined by our board of directors with the assistance of its Compensation Committee. It is anticipated that such compensation will consist of an annual retainer, an annual equity award, annual fees for serving as a committee chair and other types of compensation that may be in accordance with our Corporate Governance Guidelines.

99


Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
          Prior to the spin-off, we were a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman; therefore, our historical compensation strategy has been primarily determined by Northrop Grumman’s senior management (“Northrop Grumman Management”) and the Compensation Committee of Northrop Grumman’s board of directors (the “Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee”) along with our senior management. Since the information presented in this document relates to our 2009 fiscal year, which ended on December 31, 2009, this Compensation Discussion and Analysis focuses primarily on our compensation programs and decisions with respect to 2009 and the processes used to determine 2009 compensation. The information in this section, including in the tables herein, is presented as of December 31, 2009 when Northrop Grumman was the relevant employer. In connection with the spin-off, we will be the relevant employer and will form our own Compensation Committee that will be responsible for our executive compensation programs prospectively, which may be different from the compensation programs in place for 2009.
          This Compensation Discussion and Analysis is presented in the following sections:
          Compensation Philosophy: describes the principles that formed the foundation of the compensation and benefits programs covering our executives in 2009.
          Section I – Roles and Responsibilities: provides an overview of the roles and responsibilities of the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee, Northrop Grumman Management, our senior management and other parties involved in determining compensation for our Named Executive Officers (“New Ships NEOs”) for 2009.
          Section II – Elements of Compensation: provides more details on our main compensation elements for New Ships NEOs for 2009—salary, annual incentives (or bonus), long-term incentive compensation and other benefits.
          Section III – Policies and Procedures: gives additional information on policies and procedures related to New Ships NEO compensation for 2009.
Compensation Philosophy
          The following compensation principles were based on principles approved by the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee and formed the basis of the Compensation Philosophy.
    Compensation programs were to be directly aligned with and reinforced stockholder interests, and accordingly had to be performance-based, transparent, defensible and designed to provide pay commensurate with company results. Compensation was designed to motivate and reward our management for delivering operational and strategic performance to maximize stockholder value and demonstrating our and Northrop Grumman’s values, behaviors, and leadership competencies.
 
    Compensation and benefits had to be competitive within the market to attract and retain key talent that drives the desired business results. Market data was utilized to appropriately determine competitive pay levels.
 
    A significant part of compensation was to be at risk based on financial and individual performance. The appropriate level of equity-related compensation linked to stockholder value was delivered through long-term incentives.
 
    Compensation was to be disclosed and explained in a transparent, understandable manner. Clear and concise goals were established to enable the assessment of performance by the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee and by stockholders through the Compensation Discussion and Analysis.
 
    Compensation programs were to be consistent with financial objectives relative to our business conditions. Alignment to peer companies was considered when developing programs and goals; however, measures oriented to strongly improving business results were the predominant factor.
 
    Successful accomplishment of business goals in both annual operating performance and the achievement of increased stockholder value was designed to produce significant individual rewards, and failure to attain business goals negatively affected the pay of our executives.
 
    To promote alignment of management and stockholder interests, all officers were expected to meet stock ownership guidelines in the following denominations of base salary: our President was required to hold three times his base salary and the other New Ships NEOs were required to hold one and one-half times their salary.
 
    The mix of long-term awards, selection of performance criteria and oversight of compensation programs, together with other programs such as stock ownership guidelines, were designed to mitigate excessive risk by emphasizing a long-term focus on compensation and financial performance.

100


Table of Contents

    The New Ships NEO compensation strategy was to be consistent in philosophy for all incentive plan participants to ensure proper alignment, accountability, and line of sight regarding commitments and priorities. New Ships NEO compensation differed from that of other incentive plan participants in that New Ships NEOs had a greater percentage of compensation at risk. For 2009, over 75% of our President’s pay, and over      % of the other New Ships NEOs’ pay, was based on compensation at risk.
SECTION I
Roles and Responsibilities for 2009
          Role of Northrop Grumman Management
          Northrop Grumman has an annual compensation cycle that has historically taken place during the first quarter each year where we determine regular base salary merit increases, annual bonuses and grants of long-term incentives through an annual review of all employees, including the New Ships NEOs. The purpose of this review process has been to measure individual performance over the course of the performance year against pre-set financial, operational and individual goals. The system has assisted in ensuring that each New Ships NEO’s compensation was tied to the financial and operating performance of the company, the New Ships NEO’s individual achievement and the New Ships NEO’s demonstration of Northrop Grumman’s strategic initiatives and values.
          Throughout the year, our President provided recommendations regarding the compensation of the New Ships NEOs (other than our President) to Northrop Grumman Management for their review and approval. These recommendations were reviewed by Northrop Grumman’s Chief Human Resources and Administration Officer (“Northrop Grumman CHRO”) and included all compensation actions for our officers, including the New Ships NEOs (other than our President), as well as participation in the company’s various executive benefit and perquisite programs. The Northrop Grumman CHRO reviewed all compensation actions for our officers and then made a recommendation to the Northrop Grumman CEO for his review and approval. This was one of many inputs the Northrop Grumman CEO considered when reviewing compensation recommendations provided by our President and the Northrop Grumman CHRO. The Northrop Grumman CEO also took into account the leadership, performance, skills and industry knowledge of our officers when making his decision. The Northrop Grumman CEO could also seek additional input from an independent consultant or request additional market data from the Northrop Grumman CHRO to assist with the decision. The Northrop Grumman CEO approved all compensation actions taken with respect to our officers other than our President whose compensation and benefits were approved by the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee.
          Northrop Grumman Management also provided recommendations to the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee regarding compensation actions for our President along with all executive plan designs and strategies. These recommendations included financial goals and criteria for the annual and long-term incentive plans. Northrop Grumman Management provided its recommendations based on information gathered from consultants and the market as well as from internal resources, allowing designs and strategies to be tied directly to the needs of Northrop Grumman’s and the company’s businesses.
          Compensation Decisions for New Ships NEOs
          In February 2009, the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee, acting pursuant to authority under its charter, reviewed and approved compensation recommendations for our President. These compensation actions did not include a salary increase but did include an annual bonus payment of $        for 2008 and the grant of long-term incentives that included a grant of          stock options and a grant of            Restricted Performance Stock Rights (“RPSRs”) for the 2009 through 2011 performance period. These recommendations were provided to the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee by the Northrop Grumman CEO.
          In conjunction with the annual compensation cycle in the first quarter described above, the Northrop Grumman CEO approved the compensation actions for the New Ships NEOs below our President level. These compensation actions included salary increases, bonus payouts and grants of stock options and RPSRs.
          All grants of long-term incentive awards made to our employees by Northrop Grumman were within the annual grant guidelines established by the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee. The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee also established performance criteria for all Northrop Grumman employees, including our executives, regarding performance targets for both the Annual Incentive Plan (“AIP”) and Northrop Grumman’s long-term incentive stock plans.

101


Table of Contents

          Independent Consultant
          The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee relied on Mr. George Paulin, CEO of Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (“FW Cook”), for guidance in determining the levels and structure of executive compensation which included our President. The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee also utilized competitive salary data provided to the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee by FW Cook and by Hewitt Associates (“Hewitt”).
          Mr. Paulin’s role included: advising the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee on management proposals as requested; serving as a resource to the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee Chair on setting agenda items for Committee meetings and undertaking special projects; reviewing Northrop Grumman’s total compensation philosophy, peer groups and target competitive positioning for reasonableness and appropriateness; identifying market trends or practices; and providing proactive counsel to the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee on best practices for board governance of executive compensation as well as areas of concern or risk in Northrop Grumman’s executive compensation programs. Our executives historically participated in those programs in which Mr. Paulin advised the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee. Mr. Paulin received no other compensation from Northrop Grumman or from us except in connection with his role as an independent consultant to the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee.
          In addition to Mr. Paulin, Northrop Grumman Management also utilized consulting services from Hewitt to provide competitive market data on our officer positions. Hewitt also provided data to Mr. Paulin on behalf of the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee on an annual basis.
          Neither Mr. Paulin nor Hewitt determined compensation amounts or made decisions regarding compensation recommendations for New Ships NEOs and other executives.
          Benchmarking
          Although compensation paid to the New Ships NEOs was not rigorously tied to that paid by peer groups, the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee and the Northrop Grumman CEO determined that in order to support the objective of attracting and retaining leading executive talent, its total compensation program (base salary, target annual incentive awards, target long-term incentive award values and benefits) should, in the aggregate, approximate the 50th percentile in the market. To assess market levels of compensation, Northrop Grumman Management collected compensation data from both the Target Industry Peer Group and a General Industry Peer Group to perform annual analyses.
          The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee determined that these groups provided a reasonable and relevant comparison of market data for 2009. The Target Industry Peer Group consisted of the following 11 companies:
     
Target Industry Peer Group    
 
   
Alcoa, Inc.
  Honeywell International, Inc.
The Boeing Co.
  Johnson & Johnson
The Dow Chemical Co.
  Lockheed Martin Corp.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
  Raytheon Co.
General Dynamics Corp.
  United Technologies Corp.
General Electric Co.
   

102


Table of Contents

          Historically, the General Industry Peer Group fluctuated from year to year based on the companies participating in Hewitt’s annual executive compensation survey. For 2009, peer group data was compiled from 35 organizations of similar revenue size and employee population and then analyzed. The analysis included a review of data as reported in the surveys (including the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile information) and employed statistical analysis to assess market pay on an adjusted basis, as determined by revenue size. The following companies were included in this group for 2009:
     
General Industry Peer Group    
     
3M
  Johnson & Johnson
Abbott Laboratories
  Johnson Controls, Inc.
The Boeing CO.
  Kraft Foods, Inc.
Caterpillar, Inc.
  Lockheed Martin Corp.
Chevron Corp.
  Lowe’s Companies, Inc.
Comcast Corp.
  Macy’s, Inc.
CVS Corp.
  Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Deere & Co.
  PepsiCo, Inc.
The Dow Chemical Co.
  Philip Morris International
Emerson Electric Co.
  The Procter & Gamble Co.
FedEx Corp.
  Sears Holding Corp.
General Dynamics Corp.
  Target Corp.
General Electric Co.
  Time Warner, Inc.
General Motors Corp.
  United Technologies Corp.
Honeywell International, Inc.
  Valero Energy Corp.
Humana, Inc.
  The Walt Disney Co.
IBM Corp.
  Wellpoint, Inc.
International Paper Co.
   
          Compensation for Our President
          Hewitt Consultants provided an analysis of elected officers in the two peer groups compared to Northrop Grumman executives. This information was analyzed by FW Cook and presented to the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee in December as a basis for making base salary, bonus and long-term incentive plan recommendations the following February. The Northrop Grumman CEO used this information to determine compensation for his direct reports, including our President, which compensation was approved by the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee.
          Compensation for Other New Ships NEOs
          Northrop Grumman Management had available extensive information on competitive market practices based on numerous compensation surveys of public and private companies prepared by a variety of compensation firms. The primary source of survey information that Northrop Grumman Management relied on was provided by Hewitt and typically focused on companies in the heavy manufacturing industry with annual revenues similar in Northrop Grumman Management’s judgment to our annual revenue. Northrop Grumman Management, including the Northrop Grumman CEO, utilized this information annually when reviewing compensation information for all officers, including the New Ships NEOs.
          To evaluate competitive pay levels in the marketplace, both the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee and the Northrop Grumman CEO reviewed data reported from FW Cook for our President. The Northrop Grumman CEO reviewed data from Hewitt and SIRS Executive surveys from ORC Worldwide/Mercer for the remaining New Ships NEOs, including the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile information. Where appropriate, the data presented to the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee and the Northrop Grumman CEO also used statistical analysis of the applicable peer group to predict market pay levels based on revenue size. Statistical analysis was also used to view market data on a size-adjusted basis.
          Each of our executive positions that could be compared to relevant peer data was benchmarked to the relevant data. Executive positions that are unique to us and could not be benchmarked to the market were compared internally based on their relative duties and responsibilities. New Ships NEOs were matched to the Hewitt or SIRS benchmark positions, considering revenue size of the business unit for base, LTI and bonus. Once the survey results were released, the matches were confirmed and the market data was extracted for use in determining annual salary, bonus and LTI recommendations. In 2009, the total direct compensation for the New Ships NEOs was within the 25th and 75th percentiles of the market data reviewed. Total direct compensation includes 2009 base salary, 2009 bonus earned in 2008 and the 2009 stock grant.
          For all New Ships NEOs, the weighted average variance to market for total direct compensation was      % of the size-adjusted median of the market study performed in the fourth quarter 2009.

103


Table of Contents

          Risk Assessment
          During the fourth quarter of 2009 the Northrop Grumman board of directors performed an internal assessment of Northrop Grumman’s risk profile, including the potential risk posed by the compensation programs in which our employees participated. This was followed by a risk assessment of Northrop Grumman’s executive compensation programs in the first quarter of 2010, and performed by the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee’s compensation consultant, Mr. Paulin of FW Cook. As a part of these risk assessments, the following were considered:
    the board and the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee exercise close oversight over the performance measures utilized by the annual and long-term incentive plans, both of which serve to drive long-term performance and enhance stockholder value;
 
    the performance objectives of the plans are linked such that achievement of annual incentive plan measures serves to enhance long-term performance of Northrop Grumman and the company while also supporting the goals established for the long-term incentive plan; and
 
    the connection of performance metrics between the annual and long-term plans incentivizes long-term performance over short-term gain. Moreover, in addition to other risk-mitigating features incorporated into Northrop Grumman’s compensation programs such as holding-period requirements and stock ownership guidelines, Northrop Grumman relies upon a rigorous system of internal controls to prevent any individual employee from creating adverse material risk in pursuit of an annual or long-term award.
SECTION II
Elements of Compensation
          The compensation elements for the New Ships NEOs for fiscal 2009 are summarized in the table below and then described in more detail following the table.
             
Element of       If Variable,   Cash or
Compensation   Objectives   Performance Measured   Equity
Salaries
 
      targeted at a competitive market median on a job-by-job basis
  Not variable   Cash
 
 
      adjusted above or below median based on executive’s experience, skills and sustained performance
       
 
 
      served to recruit and retain the talent necessary to run our businesses
       
Annual Incentive
 
      designed to motivate executives to attain vital short-term goals
      intended to provide a competitive level of compensation when the individual and the company achieve the approved performance objectives
      tying the annual incentive directly to financial performance provided the most effective alignment with stockholder interests
  Variable, based on our financial performance for all executives other than our President which is based on Northrop Grumman financial performance, and adjusted for individual performance
2009 financial performance criteria were:
    new business awards
    sales
    pension-adjusted operating margin
    free cash flow before discretionary pension funding
  Cash
Long-Term Incentives
 
      for 2009, long-term incentives granted to our President in the form of Northrop Grumman stock options (60%) and Northrop Grumman Restricted Performance Stock Rights (40%); to all other New Ships NEOs in the form of Northrop Grumman stock options (10%) and Northrop Grumman Restricted Performance Stock Rights (90%)
  See below    
Stock Options
 
      provided direct alignment with stockholder interest while serving as a retention tool
  Variable, based on Northrop Grumman stock price   Equity
Restricted Performance
Stock Rights
 
      designed to establish a long-term performance perspective for the executives
      stock-based arrangement to create stockholder-managers interested in Northrop Grumman’s sustained growth and prosperity
  Variable, based on:
    pension-adjusted operating margin
    pension-adjusted return on net assets
    Northrop Grumman stock price
  Equity
Other Benefits
 
      supplemental retirement, savings, medical, severance and change-in-control plans consistent with industry practice
  Not variable   Cash

104


Table of Contents

          Salaries
          Base salaries of the New Ships NEOs were targeted at a competitive market median on a job-by-job basis with individual variations explained by differences in each incumbent’s experience, skills, and sustained performance. Internal pay relationships and equitability were also considered. The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee reviewed and approved our President’s salary and the Northrop Grumman CEO reviewed and approved the other New Ships NEOs’ salaries, based on recommendations from our President, on an annual basis, or at the time of promotion or a substantial change in responsibilities, and made adjustments as needed based on the Compensation Philosophy described above.
          Annual Incentives
          Under the Northrop Grumman Annual Incentive Plan, the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee approved annual incentive compensation targets for our President and the Northrop Grumman CEO approved the annual incentive compensation targets for the other New Ships NEOs. The incentive compensation targets were determined for each position based on market prevalence, individual job level, scope, and overall influence on the business results. The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee and the Northrop Grumman CEO considered both the recommendations of consultants and those of Northrop Grumman Management and our senior management in determining appropriate annual incentive target levels. The target incentive award (“Target Bonus”) represented a percentage of each executive’s base salary and, after the year ended, provided a basis upon which a final award amount was determined by the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee and the Northrop Grumman CEO based on its assessment of the financial performance against pre-determined performance criteria and individual performance.
          The incentive bonus targets below were established for the New Ships NEOs below.
          2009 Annual Incentive Targets
                 
        Target   Payout Range
Name   Title   Payout %   % of Salary
 
C. Michael Petters
  President and Chief Executive Officer     75 %   0% - 150%
Irwin Edenzon
  Vice President and General Manager – Gulf Coast Operations     45 %   0% - 90%
Matthew Mulherin
  Vice President and General Manager – Newport News Operations     45 %   0% - 90%
          For 2009, our President Target Bonus was evaluated based on Northrop Grumman Performance Factor (“CPF”) and an Individual Performance Factor (“IPF”). The remaining New Ships NEOs Target Bonus was evaluated on our Sector Performance Factor (“SPF”) and an IPF. Within the annual incentive formula described below, the CPF and SPF can range from 0% to 200%. In 2009, the IPF range was adjusted from 0-200% to 0-125%. Final bonus award payments were capped at 200% of an individual’s target bonus.
          Annual incentive formula for 2009:
          Base Salary x Target % = Target Bonus
          Target Bonus x CPF (or SPF) x IPF = Final Bonus Award
          At the conclusion of each calendar year, an annual performance evaluation for each New Ships NEO, other than our President, was conducted by the Northrop Grumman CEO who reviewed and approved the IPFs for those New Ships NEOs. Our President’s IPF was determined by the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee based upon an annual performance evaluation conducted by the Northrop Grumman CEO. The IPF was determined based upon consideration of the following factors:
    Financial performance
 
    Strategic leadership and vision
 
    Program execution/performance
 
    Collaboration and integration across businesses
 
    Customer relationships
 
    Operating (supplemental) objectives
          The Northrop Grumman CEO and Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee reviewed all performance information, as well as the comparison to market data, and approved bonus amounts. As previously noted, the Northrop Grumman CEO approved bonus amounts for all New Ships NEOs (other than our President) and the Northrop Grumman

105


Table of Contents

Compensation Committee approved our President’s final bonus amount. The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee approved the final financial performance factors (CPF and SPF) that were used to determine the annual incentive payout. The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee also had full discretion to make adjustments to the CPF and/or SPF if it determined such adjustment was warranted. For example, in instances where our performance had been impacted by unforeseen events (natural disasters, significant acquisitions or divestitures, etc.), the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee had exercised its authority in the past to modify the final awards. The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee had also adjusted payouts downward in the past despite performance targets having been met when it determined circumstances existed that had a negative impact on us and they were not reflected in the performance calculation. Actual adjustments for 2009 are described below.
          2009 Annual Incentive Goals and Results
          For the 2009 performance year, the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee determined that the Northrop Grumman performance goals should focus on capturing new business awards, increasing sales, expanding the current pension-adjusted operating margin and on the delivery of free cash flow before discretionary pension funding. Each metric/goal is described below and shown with its relative weighting. Goals for target performance were based on Northrop Grummans and our annual operating plan.
          Northrop Grumman Goals that were Applicable to our President
Amounts in Billions
                     
        Threshold   Target   Maximum   2009 Actual
Metric/Goal   Weighting   Performance   Performance   Performance   Performance
New Awards Resulting in Increased Backlog
  15%   $26.0   $29.0   $32.0   $33.99
Sales
  15%   $33.5   $34.5   $35.5   $35.2
Pension-Adjusted Operating Margin*
  35%   $2.68   $2.93   $3.195   $2.98
Free Cash Flow Before Discretionary Pension Funding
  35%   $1.575   $2.075   $2.575   $2.38
          * This goal was based on achieving specific operating margin dollar amounts (adjusted for net FAS/CAS pension expense).
          The AIP score for our President was based upon the Northrop Grumman scores for each individual financial goal.
     Goals that were Applicable to the Remaining New Ships NEOs
Amounts in Billions
                 
        Threshold   Target   2009 Actual
Metric/Goal   Weighting   Performance   Performance   Performance
New Awards Resulting in Increased Backlog
  15%   $2,716   $3,016   $4,976
Sales
  15%   $5,687   $5,862   $6,213
Operating Margin*
  35%   $447   $472   $299
Free Cash Flow
  35%   $281   $321   $1
          * This goal was based on achieving specific operating margin dollar amounts.
          AIP scores for our NEOs other than our President were based upon our level of participation in the Northrop Grumman scores for each individual financial goal. Full participation in the Northrop Grumman score required us to achieve our target performance values.
          If we did not achieve the target value for full participation, we received less than 100% of the Northrop Grumman score for the metric. We received a zero score for any metric where our performance fell below the threshold value. The summation of our weighted sector financial metric scores was multiplied by an operating factor to arrive at the final AIP score. The operating factor was based on our performance as measured against a set of specific pre-approved non-financial objectives.
          For 2009, we exceeded our targets for awards and sales and received the full Northrop Grumman score for these two metrics. We did not meet the threshold values for operating margin and free cash flow, so we received zero for these two metrics. After applying the operating factor and CEO discretion to the total financial score, the final AIP payout was 65% of target payout.
          In 2009, Northrop Grumman sold the Advisory Services Division (“ASD”). The 2009 performance assessment included ASD operating results for the 50-week period of time that Northrop Grumman owned them and excluded the

106


Table of Contents

impact of state and, for free cash flow purposes, Federal taxes associated with the sale of ASD. Performance for all four metrics was above the target level resulting in a calculated CPF of 153%. Based on an assessment of performance at Northrop Grumman’s five operating units, the Northrop Grumman CEO recommended to the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee a lower CPF of 125% for our President and at the recommendation of our President, a lower IPF score of 65% which was consistent with the SPF factor for our sector, and these recommendations were accepted by the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee.
          The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee considered 2009 performance and results against the specific 2009 company and individual goals. The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee reviewed the level of achievement for each objective. The actual incentive award for our President paid for 2009 performance was based on Northrop Grumman’s performance factor of 125% and the actual incentive awards for the remaining New Ships NEOs paid for 2009 performance were based on our performance factor of 65%. The New Ships NEOs all met or exceeded their individual performance targets which resulted in IPFs ranging from      % to      %, but due to our SPF of 65%, payouts were below target.
          Details on the range of bonuses that could have been payable based on 2009 performance are provided in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table. Actual bonus payouts for 2009 performance are provided in the Summary Compensation Table.
Long-Term Incentive Compensation
          2009 Stock Option and Restricted Performance Stock Right Awards
          During 2009, each of the New Ships NEOs was granted long-term incentive awards in the form of Northrop Grumman equity grants. With respect to the amount of long-term incentive awards granted to the New Ships NEOs in 2009, the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee determined the target award value for our President, and the Northrop Grumman CEO determined the target award values for the other New Ships NEOs based on the market analysis discussed in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis, applying value-based guidelines which focus on the value delivered versus the number of shares delivered (share-based guidelines). The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee and Northrop Grumman CEO believed that value-based guidelines more effectively allowed for the delivery of target opportunities that were consistent with median awards given to individuals holding comparable positions at peer companies.
          2009 Long-Term Incentive Target Value
             
        Target Value
Name   Title   (% of Base Salary)
     
C. Michael Petters
  President and Chief Executive Officer     248 %
Irwin Edenzon
  Vice President and General Manager – Gulf Coast Operations     110 %
Matthew Mulherin
  Vice President and General Manager – Newport News Operations     110 %
          In 2009, the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee granted approximately 60% of the target value in the form of stock options and approximately 40% in the form of RPSRs to our President. The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee and the Northrop Grumman CEO believed it was important to utilize performance-based units such as RPSRs in combination with stock options, as this long-term incentive combination focused on creating stockholder value. Stock options granted to our President in 2009 vest in 33.3% installments, becoming fully vested after three years, and expiring after seven years. For all other NEOs, the Northrop Grumman CEO approved awards 90% in the form of RPSRs and 10% the form of stock options which vest in 33.3% installments, becoming fully vested after three years and expiring after seven years.
          The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee evaluated RPSR performance requirements each year to ensure they were aligned with Northrop Grumman’s objectives. For the 2009 grant, the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee reviewed the performance metrics with management and determined that financial performance would be measured based on the Return On Net Assets (“RONA”) adjusted for pension benefits and the pension-adjusted operating margin rate achieved at the end of the three-year period. Final performance determination is an equally weighted sum of RONA and pension-adjusted operating margin rate results. Target performance was based upon achieving a RONA of 14.0% and achieving a pension-adjusted operating margin rate of 9.2% at the end of 2011.
          Shares that ultimately are vested and paid out under an RPSR award to the executive can vary from 0% to 200% of the original number of shares granted. RPSR awards may be paid in shares, cash or a combination of shares and cash. Dividends are not paid or earned on RPSR awards.

107


Table of Contents

          More details on the 2009 stock option and RPSR grants to the New Ships NEOs are provided in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table.
          Recently Completed RPSR Performance Period (2007 – 2009)
          During the first quarter of each year, the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee reviewed Northrop Grumman’s financial performance achievement against established goals to determine payout multiples for RPSRs with a performance period that ended in the prior year. In general, the payout multiples were mathematically calculated. The calculations were performed by an independent third party (CharterMast Partners, LLC) with inputs to the calculations agreed to the accounting records for historical accounting results by internal audit. The results were presented to the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee for its review and approval. The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee had full authority to make adjustments to the payout multiple if it determined such adjustment was warranted. For example, in instances where performance had been impacted by unforeseen events (natural disasters, significant acquisitions or divestitures, etc.), the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee had used discretion in the past to modify the final awards. Individual performance was not relevant to the amount of the final payout for RPSRs.
          During the February 2010 meeting, the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee reviewed performance for the January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009 RPSR performance period. The 2007 grant was linked to two performance factors designed to encourage the financial return performance and growth of Northrop Grumman. The final award for this grant of RPSRs was based on an equally weighted sum of two metrics: average cash flow return on investment (“CFROI”) and the cumulative amount of pension-adjusted operating margin over the three-year period. The return performance was measured by average CFROI and the growth was measured by pension-adjusted operating margin. CFROI is the average of the three annual CFROI performance levels, measured as the spread between actual CFROI and the cost of capital (“CoC”). 2009 performance included ASD operating results for the 50-week period of time that Northrop Grumman owned them and excluded the impact of state and Federal taxes associated with the sale of ASD. For all three years, CFROI excluded the annual non-cash pension and other post-retirement benefit plan re-measurement impacts required by SFAS No. 158 which was adopted after the goals were established.
          The amount of cumulative pension-adjusted operating margin over the three-year period was less than the threshold amount primarily because of the $3.1 billion goodwill impairment charge taken by Northrop Grumman in 2008. The three-year average CFROI less CoC was 12.9% which exceeded the target of 6.8%. The combined score for the two metrics was 87%.
Other Benefits
          This section describes the other benefits New Ships NEOs received in 2009. These benefits were non-performance related and were designed to provide a market competitive package for purposes of attracting and retaining the executive talent needed to achieve our business objectives. These included benefits under broad-based retirement plans, as well as supplemental executive benefits provided in addition to those provided to all other employees. These supplemental benefits included supplemental pension plans, enhanced health and welfare benefits and the Special Officers Retiree Medical Plan (“SORMP”) for our President offered at retirement.
          Defined Benefit Retirement Plans
          Northrop Grumman maintains tax-qualified defined benefit plans that covered the New Ships NEOs and the majority of our workforce. Compensation, age and service factor into the amount of the benefits provided under the plans. Thus, the plans were structured to reward and retain employees of long service and to recognize higher performance levels as evidenced by increases in annual pay.
          Northrop Grumman maintains supplemental defined benefit plans that covered the New Ships NEOs. These plans (1) provided benefits that would have been provided under the tax-qualified plans but for limitations imposed by the Internal Revenue Code and (2) provided larger accruals for elected and appointed officers in recognition of the higher levels of responsibility for such executives. Such benefits are common in the aerospace and defense industry.
          Although benefits were paid from different plans due to plan and legal requirements, Northrop Grumman imposed an overall cap on all the pension benefits which included the New Ships NEOs (subject to small variations due to contractual restrictions under the plans) as follows:
          Each elected officer’s total pension benefit under all pension plans combined was limited to no more than 60% of his or her final average pay.
          Additional information on these defined benefit retirement plans and the cap on elected officer pension benefits is provided in the Pension Benefits Table.

108


Table of Contents

          Defined Contribution Savings Plans
          Northrop Grumman maintains tax-qualified retirement savings plans that covered the New Ships NEOs and the majority of our workforce. Participating employees contributed amounts from their pay to the plans, and Northrop Grumman generally provided a matching contribution.
          Northrop Grumman maintains two supplemental savings plans that covered all eligible employees, including the New Ships NEOs. The Savings Excess Plan allowed the New Ships NEOs and all other eligible employees to defer compensation beyond the limits of the tax-qualified plans and receive a matching contribution. The New Ships NEOs and all other eligible employees could also defer compensation under the Deferred Compensation Plan. No match was provided under the Deferred Compensation Plan, which will be closed to new contributions as of December 31, 2010.
          Additional information about the Savings Excess and Deferred Compensation Plans is provided in the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table.
          Special Officer Retiree Medical Plan
          The Special Officer Retiree Medical Plan (“SORMP”) was closed to new participants in 2007. Only our President was a participant in the SORMP and was entitled to retiree medical benefits pursuant to the terms of the SORMP. The coverage was essentially a continuation of the executive medical benefits plus retiree life insurance. Additional information about the SORMP is provided in the Retiree Medical Arrangement section in the attached tables.
          Perquisites
          New Ships NEOs were eligible for certain executive perquisites which included financial planning, income tax preparation, physical exams and personal liability insurance.
          Use of Northrop Grumman Aircraft
          Only our President was able to utilize Northrop Grumman aircraft for all travel. Throughout the year, if our President used Northrop Grumman aircraft for personal travel, the costs for such travel were imputed as income and subject to the appropriate tax reporting according to IRS regulations and this benefit was not grossed up.
          Severance and Change-in-Control Benefits
          Northrop Grumman has an established severance plan for elected and appointed officers as well as a change-in-control Special Agreement for certain elected officers, including our President. These programs fit into Northrop Grumman’s overall compensation objectives by providing incentives that were intended to ensure the interests of stockholders continue to be paramount in times of job related uncertainty. Significant reductions to the change-in-control benefits were approved in 2008 and 2009. These changes were made to bring current program provisions into better alignment with similar benefits found in the market.
          These plans were intended to address unusual, one-time events outside the scope of normal duties; they generally have not been taken into account in determining other elements of compensation for the New Ships NEOs. Both plans provided compensation and benefits for a reasonable period if participants were terminated. The change-in-control Special Agreement plan was designed to help retain key executives during uncertain times surrounding an acquisition and allow executives to remain focused on managing the company in the best interests of its stockholders. The only New Ships NEO who had a Special Agreement was our President. In addition, during its March 2010 meeting, the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee approved the termination of all change-in-control programs at Northrop Grumman as of December 31, 2010.
          Northrop Grumman’s Severance Plan for Elected and Appointed Officers was implemented in August 2003, and offers severance to officers who qualify and are approved to receive such treatment. Generally, executives are unemployed for a time period following a termination, and the purpose of the severance plan was to help bridge an executive’s income and health coverage during this period. Effective October 1, 2009, the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee approved a modification to severance benefits for our President and reduced the severance benefits from two years of salary and bonus to eighteen months. All other New Ships NEOs were eligible for severance benefits equal to one year of base salary + target bonus. In general, these benefits were consistent with severance multiples and benefit continuation periods in the market. The severance benefits that were provided to the New Ships NEOs under the Northrop Grumman Severance Plan for Elected and Appointed Officers were the following:

109


Table of Contents

          For our President
    Lump sum cash payment = 11/2 x (Base Salary + Target Bonus)
 
    Continue to pay portion of medical & dental benefits for 18 months concurrent with COBRA coverage. The employee is responsible for his/her portion
 
    Outplacement assistance up to 1 year after termination
 
    Continued reimbursement of eligible financial planning expenses for the year of termination and the following year, up to a maximum of $15,000 per year
          For the Remaining New Ships NEOs
    Lump sum cash payment = 1 x (Base Salary + Target Bonus)
 
    Continue to pay portion of medical & dental benefits for 12 months concurrent with COBRA coverage. The employee is responsible for his/her portion
 
    Outplacement assistance up to 1 year after termination
 
    Continued reimbursement of eligible financial planning expenses for the year of termination and the following year, up to a maximum of $5,000 per year
          Additional information on the benefits provided under severance and change-in-control plans is provided in the Severance/Change-in-Control section of the tables. None of the New Ships NEOs will be entitled to any severance benefits under Northrop Grumman Severance Plan for Elected and Appointed Officers or under the CIC Special Agreement as a result of the spin-off.
SECTION III
Policies and Procedures
          Tax Deductibility of Pay
          Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code generally limits the annual tax deduction to $1 million per person for compensation paid to a public company’s CEO and its next three highest-paid executive officers (other than the CFO). Qualifying performance-based compensation is not subject to the deduction limit. For 2009, none of the New Ships NEOs was within the group of Northrop Grumman executive officers that was subject to the Code Section 162(m) limitations. Following the spin-off, we intend to consider the application of the Code Section 162(m) limits. However, our compensation decisions will be made, among other things, to ensure market competitive rates are maintained and retention of critical executives is achieved. Sometimes these decisions may result in compensation amounts being non-deductible under Code Section 162(m).
          Grant Date for Equity Awards
          Historically, the annual grant cycle for stock options and other equity awards occurred at the same time as salary increases and annual incentive grants. This typically occurred in February each calendar year. This timing allowed management and the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee and the Northrop Grumman CEO to make decisions on three compensation components at the same time, utilizing a total compensation perspective. The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee and the Northrop Grumman CEO reviewed and approved long-term incentive grants in February and established the grant price for stock options on the date of the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee meeting. The grant price was equal to the closing price of Northrop Grumman’s stock on the date of grant.
          At its February 2009 meeting, the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee reviewed and approved the long-term incentives for our President and long-term incentives for the remaining New Ships NEOs were approved by the Northrop Grumman CEO under his delegation from the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee. The 2009 grant was approved after the filing of Northrop Grumman’s Form 10-K for 2008 on February 10, 2009, as the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee and Northrop Grumman CEO believed it was important to have the grant occur following the release of detailed financial information about the company. This approach allowed for the stock price to be fully reflective of the market’s consideration of material information disclosed in Northrop Grumman’s Form 10-K.
          Stock Ownership Guidelines
          Northrop Grumman maintains stock ownership guidelines which applied to the New Ships NEOs. These guidelines were intended to further promote alignment of management and stockholder interests. These guidelines required that the

110


Table of Contents

New Ships NEOs and other officers own stock denominated as a multiple of their annual salaries which could be accumulated over a five-year period from the date of hire or promotion into an officer position.
          The Stock Ownership guidelines were as follows:
    New Ships President:             3 x base salary
 
    Other New Ships NEOs:        11/2 x base salary
          Shares that satisfy the stock ownership guidelines included:
    Stock owned outright by an officer
 
    Restricted Stock Rights, whether or not vested
 
    Value of equivalent shares held in the Northrop Grumman Savings Plan or Northrop Grumman Financial Security and Savings Program
          Stock options and unvested RPSRs were not included in calculating ownership until they were converted to actual shares owned.
          During its September 2009 meeting, the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee performed its annual review of the ownership of all elected officers including our President. The Northrop Grumman CEO performed a review of the remaining New Ships NEOs stock ownership holdings. The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee and the Northrop Grumman CEO were satisfied with the efforts of all officers to maintain compliance and acknowledged the challenges presented by the poor performance of the equity markets through 2008 and 2009.
          In September 2008, the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee approved a stock trading program under SEC Rule 10b5-1 for purposes of more effectively managing insider sales of stock. The plan covered all the New Ships NEOs and other officers. An insider could establish a plan during any quarterly window period for the next window period, the duration of the plan was one year.
          Executive Compensation Recoupment
          Ethical behavior and integrity remain an important priority for the company leadership. In support of this, the Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee approved an executive compensation recoupment policy (also known as a “clawback” policy) at its December 2008 meeting, and subsequently amended the clawback policy in March 2010. The policy applied to our NEOs and all other employees at the level of Vice President or higher. Under this policy, the company could recover annual and long-term incentive compensation when incentive payments had been based on financial results that were later restated. The Northrop Grumman Compensation Committee was responsible for investigating potential payments based on inaccurate financial results that were later restated, and determining whether any incentive payments were to be recovered.
          Stock Holding Requirement
          Effective with February 2010 awards, Northrop Grumman implemented a new stock holding policy for officers. This new policy works in conjunction with the stock ownership requirements and requires all officers (CPC members and vice presidents) to hold, for a period of three years, 50% of the net shares (after taxes) received from RPSR payouts and stock option exercises. This change is effective with the 2010 grants and for grants made in subsequent years. Grants to employees prior to 2010 are not subject to these holding requirements. These holding requirements will continue upon termination and retirement for a one-year period after separation from the company, affecting any stock vesting or option exercises in that one-year period. Stock vesting or options exercised after the one-year anniversary of retirement or termination will not be subject to the holding requirement.

111


Table of Contents

Summary Compensation Table
2009 Summary Compensation Table
                                                                         
                                                    Change in        
                                                    Pension Value        
                                                    and Non-        
                                                    Qualified        
                                            Non-Equity   Deferred        
                            Stock   Option   Incentive Plan   Compensation   All Other    
            Salary (1)   Bonus   Awards   Awards (2)   Compensation (3)   Earnings (4)   Compensation (5)   Total
Name & Principal Position   Year   ($)   ($)   (2) ($)   ($)   ($)   ($)   ($)   ($)
C. Michael Petters
    2009                                                                  
President and Chief
    2008                                                                  
Executive Officer
    2007                                                                  
Irwin F. Edenzon
    2009                                                                  
Vice President and General
    2008                                                                  
Manager – Gulf Coast Operations
    2007                                                                  
Matthew J. Mulherin
    2009                                                                  
Vice President and General
    2008                                                                  
Manager – Newport News Operations
    2007                                                                  
Footnotes:
(1)   The amounts in this column include amounts deferred under the savings and nonqualified deferred compensation plans.
 
(2)   The dollar value shown in these columns is equal to the grant-date fair value of equity awards made during the year. For assumptions used in calculating these numbers, see Footnote 4 on the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table. The maximum grant date value of 2009 stock awards for each NEO is listed below:
    C. Michael Petters       $
 
    Irwin F. Edenzon         $
 
    Matthew J. Mulherin   $
(3)   The amounts in this column include amounts deferred under the savings and nonqualified deferred compensation plans. These amounts were paid under Northrop Grumman’s annual bonus plan during 2010, 2009 and 2008 based on performance achieved during the prior year, as described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis.
 
(4)   There were no above-market earnings in the nonqualified deferred compensation plans (see the description of these plans under the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation table). The amounts in this column relate solely to the increased present value of the executive’s pension plan benefits (see the description of these plans under the Pension Benefits table).
 
(5)   The 2009 amount listed in this column for Mr. Petters includes medical, dental, life and disability premiums ($          ), company contributions to Northrop Grumman defined contribution plans ($          ), financial planning/income tax preparation ($          ), personal liability insurance ($          ), and personal and dependent travel including company aircraft ($          ).
          The 2009 amount listed in this column for Mr. Edenzon includes medical, dental, life and disability premiums ($          ), executive perquisite and car allowance ($          ), company contributions to Northrop Grumman defined contribution plans ($          ), personal liability insurance ($          ) and personal and dependent travel including company aircraft ($          ).
          The 2009 amount listed in this column for Mr. Mulherin includes medical, dental, life and disability premiums ($          ), executive perquisite and car allowance ($          ), company contributions to Northrop Grumman defined contribution plans ($          ), financial planning/income tax preparation ($          ) and personal liability insurance ($          ).
          Method for Calculating Perquisite Value
          The following method was used to calculate the value of personal use of Northrop Grumman aircraft described in the paragraphs above. Northrop Grumman calculates the incremental cost of each element, which includes trip-related crew hotels and meals, in-flight food and beverages, landing and ground handling fees, hourly maintenance contract costs, hangar or aircraft parking costs, fuel costs based on the average annual cost of fuel per mile flown, and other smaller

112


Table of Contents

variable costs. Fixed costs that would be incurred in any event to operate Northrop Grumman aircraft (e.g., aircraft purchase costs, maintenance not related to personal trips, and flight crew salaries) are not included. The amount related to the loss of tax deduction to Northrop Grumman on account of personal use of corporate aircraft under the Internal Revenue Code is not included.
2009 Grants of Plan-Based Awards
2009 Grants of Plan-Based Awards
                                                 
                                    All            
                                    Other            
                                    Stock   All Other        
                                    Awards:   Option        
                                    Number   Awards:   Exercise   Grant
            Estimated Future Payouts Under               of   Number of   or Base   Date Fair
            Non-Equity Incentive Plan   Estimated Future Payouts Under   Shares   Securities   Price of   Value of
Name &           Awards (1)   Equity Incentive Plan Awards (2)   of Stock   Underlying   Option   Stock and
Principal   Grant   Grant   Threshold   Target   Maximum   Threshold   Target   Maximum   or Units   Options (3)   Awards   Option
Position   Type   Date   ($)   ($)   ($)   ($)   ($)   ($)   (#)   (#)   ($/Sh)   Awards (4)
C. Michael Petters
President and Chief Executive Officer
  Incentive
Plan
RPSR
Options
                                           
Irwin F. Edenzon
Vice President and General Manager – Gulf Coast Operations
  Incentive
Plan
RPSR
Options
                                           
Matthew J. Mulherin
Vice President and General Manager – Newport News Operations
  Incentive
Plan
RPSR
Options
                                           
Footnotes:
(1)   Amounts in these columns show the range of payouts that was possible under Northrop Grumman’s annual bonus plan based on performance during 2009, as described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis. The actual bonus amounts that were paid in 2010 based on 2009 performance are shown in the Summary Compensation Table above in the column titled “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation.”
 
(2)   These amounts relate to RPSRs granted in 2009 under the 2001 Long-Term Incentive Stock Plan. Each RPSR represents the right to receive a share of Northrop Grumman’s common stock upon vesting of the RPSR. The RPSRs may be earned based on Northrop Grumman’s Operating Margin (“OM”) and Return on Net Assets (“RONA”) performance over a three-year performance period commencing January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2011. The payout will occur in early 2012 and may range from 0% to 200% of the rights awarded. Earned RPSRs may be paid in shares, cash or a combination of shares and cash. An executive must remain employed through the performance period to earn an award, although pro-rata vesting results if employment terminates earlier due to retirement, death or disability. See the Severance/Change-in-Control section for treatment of RPSRs in these situations and upon a change in control.
 
(3)   These amounts relate to non-qualified stock options granted in 2009 under the 2001 Long-Term Incentive Stock Plan. The exercise price for the options equals the closing price of Northrop Grumman’s common stock on the date of grant. The options vest in one-third installments on the first three anniversaries of the grant date and become fully vested after three years. The options may also vest upon a change in control under certain circumstances, and a portion of the options may vest upon termination due to retirement, death or disability (see more on these issues in

113


Table of Contents

    the Severance/Change-in-Control section). The options expire seven years from the date of the grant. No dividends or dividend equivalents are payable with respect to the options.
 
(4)   For assumptions used in calculating these numbers in accordance with U.S. GAAP, see the discussion in Footnote 17 of Northrop Grumman’s 2009 Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, adjusted to exclude forfeitures.
Outstanding Equity Awards at 2009 Year End
Outstanding Equity Awards at 2009 Year End
                                         
    Option Awards   Stock Awards
                                        Equity
                                    Equity   Ince