1.0.0.3 false Commitments and Contingencies false 1 $ false false Shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 USDEPS Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 2 Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] 0 lll_CommitmentsAndContingenciesAbstract lll false na duration string Commitments and Contingencies. false false false false false true false false false 1 false false 0 0 false false Commitments and Contingencies. false 3 Commitments and Contingencies 1 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration string No definition available. false false false false false false false false false 1 false false 0 0  <html> <head></head> <body>  <div style="margin-left: 0%"> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF; text-align: left"> <tr> <td width="5%"></td> <td width="95%"></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td> <b><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">16.  </font></b> </td> <td> <b><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">Commitments and Contingencies</font></b> </td> </tr> </table> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> <b><i><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">U.S. and Foreign Government Procurement Regulations</font></i></b> </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> A substantial majority of the Company’s revenues are generated from providing products and services under legally binding agreements, or contracts, with U.S. Government and foreign government customers. U.S. Government contracts are subject to extensive legal and regulatory requirements, and, from time to time, agencies of the U.S. Government investigate whether such contracts were and are being conducted in accordance with these requirements. The Company is currently cooperating with the U.S. Government on several investigations from which civil, criminal or administrative proceedings could result and give rise to fines, penalties, compensatory and treble damages, restitution <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> forfeitures. The Company does not currently anticipate that any of these investigations will have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, under U.S. Government regulations, an indictment of the Company by a federal grand jury could result in the Company being suspended for a period of time from eligibility for awards of new government contracts or in a loss of export privileges. A conviction could result in debarment from contracting with the federal government for a specified term. In addition, all of the Company’s U.S. Government contracts: (1) are subject to audit and various pricing and cost controls, (2) include standard provisions for termination for the convenience of the U.S. Government or for default, and (3) are subject to cancellation if funds for contracts become unavailable. Foreign government contracts generally include comparable provisions relating to terminations for convenience and default, as well as other procurement clauses relevant to the foreign government. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> <b><i><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">Litigation Matters</font></i></b> </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> The Company has been subject to and is involved in litigation, government investigations, proceedings, claims or assessments and various contingent liabilities incidental to its businesses, including those specified below. Furthermore, in connection with certain business acquisitions, the Company has assumed some or all claims against, and liabilities of, the acquired business, including both asserted and unasserted claims and liabilities. In accordance with SFAS No. 5, <i>Accounting for Contingencies, </i>the Company records a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. Generally, the loss is recorded at the amount the Company expects to resolve the liability. The estimated amounts of liabilities recorded for pending and threatened litigation is disclosed in Note 8. Amounts recoverable from insurance contracts or third parties are recorded as assets when deemed probable. At June 26, 2009, the Company did not record any amounts for recoveries from insurance contracts or third parties in connection with the amount of liabilities recorded for pending and threatened litigation. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for its litigation matters. The Company reviews these provisions quarterly and adjusts these provisions to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. While it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome may occur in one or more of the following matters, unless otherwise stated below, the Company believes that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of these matters. An estimate of loss or range of loss is disclosed for a particular litigation matter when such amount or amounts can be reasonably estimated and no loss has been accrued. The Company believes that any damage amounts claimed in the specific matters discussed below are not meaningful indicators of potential liability. Although the Company believes that it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters and investigations pending against it, litigation is inherently unpredictable. Therefore, it is possible that the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company could be materially adversely affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> <i>Kalitta Air.</i> L-3 Integrated Systems and its predecessors have been involved in litigation with Kalitta Air arising from a contract to convert Boeing 747 aircraft from passenger configuration to cargo freighters. The lawsuit was brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the trial court) on January 31, 1997. The aircraft were modified using Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) issued in 1988 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to Hayes International, Inc. (Hayes/Pemco) as a subcontractor to GATX/Airlog Company (GATX). Between 1988 and 1990, Hayes/Pemco modified five aircraft as a subcontractor to GATX using the STCs. Between 1990 and 1994, Chrysler Technologies Airborne Systems, Inc. (CTAS), a predecessor to L-3 Integrated Systems, performed as a subcontractor to GATX and modified an additional five aircraft using the STCs. Two of the aircraft modified by CTAS were owned by American International Airways, the predecessor to Kalitta Air. In 1996, the FAA determined that the engineering data provided by Hayes/Pemco supporting the STCs was inadequate and issued an Airworthiness Directive that effectively grounded the ten modified aircraft. The Kalitta Air aircraft have not been in revenue service since that date. The matter was tried in January 2001 against GATX and CTAS with the jury finding fault on the part of GATX, but rendering a unanimous defense verdict in favor of CTAS. Certain co-defendants had settled prior to trial. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently reversed and remanded the trial court’s summary judgment rulings in favor of CTAS regarding a negligence claim by Kalitta Air, which asserts that CTAS as an expert in aircraft modification should have known that the STCs were deficient. The retrial began on January 18, 2005, and ended on March 2, 2005 with a deadlocked jury and mistrial. At the retrial, Kalitta Air claimed damages of $235 million plus interest. By order dated July 22, 2005, the trial court granted the Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to negligence dismissing that claim, denied the Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to negligent misrepresentation, and certified the decision for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 8, 2008, the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the negligence claim and affirmed the trial court’s ruling as to the negligent misrepresentation claim. The case has been remanded to the trial court to reconsider the negligence claim and for further proceedings on the negligent misrepresentation claim. A court-ordered mediation held on March 18, 2009 was unsuccessful. A hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss the negligence claim was held on April 30, 2009, after which the trial court determined to take the matter under advisement and ordered the parties to attend another mediation not later than September 4, 2009. The case is currently scheduled to go to a third trial on November 1, 2010. CTAS’ insurance carrier has accepted defense of the matter and has retained counsel, subject to a reservation of rights by the insurer to dispute its obligations under the applicable insurance policies in the event of an adverse finding. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> <i>Korean Lot II Program.</i> On April 4, 2005, Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed) filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging misappropriation of proprietary information and breach of a license agreement. The complaint alleges that L-3 Integrated Systems (L-3 IS) is in breach of its license agreement with Lockheed and is infringing on Lockheed’s intellectual property rights as a result of its performance of a subcontract awarded to L-3 IS for the Korean Lot II program. On May 21, 2009, a jury found in favor of Lockheed and awarded $30 million on the misappropriation claim, $7.28 million on the breach of license agreement claim, plus legal fees and expenses. On July 3, 2009, Lockheed filed a motion with the court seeking approximately $17 million in legal fees and expenses, and an injunction prohibiting L-3’s further use of the intellectual property that was the basis of the jury’s award. The Company believes that the verdict and the damages awarded are inconsistent with the law and evidence presented, and intends to appeal following entry of the judgment by the trial court. </div> </div>   <div style="margin-left: 0%">  <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt"> </div> <div align="center" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> <b> <font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times"> </font> </b> </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> <i>SafeView Arbitration.</i> The Company was previously subject to an American Arbitration Association proceeding initiated by Paladin Homeland Security Fund on behalf of all former stockholders of SafeView, Inc. alleging violations of federal securities laws, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with L-3’s acquisition of SafeView. On May 28, 2009, the arbitration panel ruled in favor of L-3 and denied any award to the claimants. Under the terms of the agreement governing the acquisition, the decision is final, conclusive and binding on the parties. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> <i>Aircrew Training and Rehearsal Support (ATARS) Investigation.</i> Following a lawsuit filed by Lockheed on April 6, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the Company and certain individuals related to the ATARS II Program (which was settled in November 2007), the Company received Grand Jury subpoenas in connection with an investigation being conducted by the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. The subpoenas request the production of documents related to Lockheed’s allegations or produced in the civil litigation settled in November 2007. The Company is cooperating fully with the U.S. Government. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> <i>Titan Government Investigation.</i> In October 2002, Titan received a grand jury subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the DoJ requesting the production of documents relating to information technology services performed for the U.S. Air Force at Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Titan was informed that other companies who have performed similar services had received subpoenas as well. The Company acquired Titan in July 2005. On September 20, 2006, counsel for the Company was informed by the New York Field Office of the DoJ’s Criminal Antitrust Division that it was considering indictment. Additionally, a former Titan employee received a letter from the DoJ indicating that he was a target of the investigation. If the Field Office recommends indictment then, under normal DoJ procedures, Titan (now known as L-3 Services) will be afforded an opportunity to make a presentation to the Criminal Antitrust Division in Washington, D.C. before the DoJ acts on the recommendation. It is not known whether an indictment of L-3 Services or any of its employees will occur. If it does occur, it is possible that L-3 Services could be suspended or debarred from conducting business with the U.S. Government. In December 2008, the DoJ indicated its interest in conducting additional employee interviews concerning a teaming agreement relating to the Wright Patterson Air Force Base procurement. The Company is cooperating fully with the DoJ. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> <i>SEC Inquiry.</i> In March 2007, the Company was contacted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Enforcement Division, requesting that the Company provide certain information relating to its previously disclosed review of its historical stock option granting practices. The Company voluntarily provided the requested information and has cooperated fully with the SEC. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> <i>CyTerra Government Investigation.</i> Since November 2006, CyTerra has been served with civil and Grand Jury subpoenas by the DoD Office of the Inspector General and the DoJ. The Company is cooperating fully with the Government. The Company believes that it is entitled to indemnification for any course of defense related to this matter and has made a claim against the escrow under the purchase agreement by which the Company acquired CyTerra in March 2006. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> <i>Bashkirian Airways.</i> On July 1, 2004, lawsuits were filed on behalf of the estates of 31 Russian children in the state courts of Washington, Arizona, California, Florida, New York and New Jersey against Honeywell, Honeywell TCAS, Thales USA, Thales France, the Company and Aviation Communications & Surveillance Systems (ACSS), which is a joint venture of L-3 and Thales. The suits relate to the crash over southern Germany of Bashkirian Airways Tupelov TU 154M aircraft and a DHL Boeing 757 cargo aircraft. On-board the Tupelov aircraft were 9 crew members and 60 passengers, including 45 children. The Boeing aircraft carried a crew of two. Both aircraft were equipped with Honeywell/ACSS Model 2000, Change 7 Traffic Collision and Avoidance Systems (TCAS). Sensing the other aircraft, the on-board DHL TCAS instructed the DHL pilot to descend, and the Tupelov on-board TCAS instructed the Tupelov pilot to climb. However, the Swiss air traffic controller ordered the Tupelov pilot to descend. The Tupelov pilot disregarded the on-board TCAS and put the Tupelov aircraft into a descent striking the DHL aircraft in midair at approximately 35,000 feet. All crew and passengers of both planes were lost. Investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board after the crash revealed that both TCAS units were performing as designed. The suits allege negligence and strict product liability based upon the design of the units and the training provided to resolve conflicting commands and seek approximately $315 million in damages, including $150 million in punitive damages. The Company’s insurers have accepted defense of the matter and retained counsel, subject to a reservation of rights by the insurers to dispute their obligations under the applicable insurance policies in the event of an adverse finding. The matters were consolidated in the Federal Court in New Jersey, which has dismissed the actions on the basis of forum non conveniens. The plaintiffs re-filed a complaint on April 23, 2007 with the Barcelona Court’s Registry in Spain. The trial for this matter was completed on April 22, 2009, and the parties are awaiting the Court’s decision. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> <i>Gol Airlines.</i> The Company was served with complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against ExcelAire, Joseph Lepore, Jan Paul Paladino, Honeywell, Lockheed, Raytheon, and Amazon Technologies and ACSS. The complaints relate to the September 29, 2006 airplane crash over Brazil of a Boeing <font style="white-space: nowrap">737-800</font> operated by GOL Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, S.A. and an Embraer 600 business jet operated by ExcelAire. The complaints allege that ACSS designed the Traffic Collision and Avoidance System (TCAS) on the ExcelAire jet, and assert claims of negligence, strict products liability and breach of warranty against ACSS based on the design of the TCAS and the instructions provided for its use. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages, including punitive damages. The Company’s insurers have accepted defense of this matter and have retained counsel, subject to a reservation of rights by the insurers to dispute their obligations under the applicable insurance policies in the event of an adverse finding. On July 3, 2008, the District Court dismissed the actions on the basis of forum non conveniens on the grounds that Brazil was the location of the accident and is more convenient for witnesses and document availability. On August 1, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of this ruling with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Although the appeal is still pending, some of the plaintiffs re-filed their complaints in the Lower Civil Court in the Judicial District of Peixoto de Azevedo in Brazil on July 3, 2009. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> <i>Pilatus PC-12 Aircraft.</i> On July 6, 2007, the Company was served with an amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Pilatus Aircraft, Ltd., Pilatus Flugzeuweke Aktiengellschaft, Rosemont Aerospace, Inc., Revue Thommen AC, EMCA, Goodrich Corp., Goodrich Avionics Systems, Inc. (the predecessor to L-3 Avionics) and the Company. The amended complaint relates to the March 26, 2005 crash of a Pilatus PC-12 aircraft near Belafonte, Pennsylvania in which all six on board were lost. The amended complaint alleges that L-3 Avionics (and/or its predecessor company, Goodrich Avionics) designed, manufactured, tested, marketed, and sold the stick shaker/pusher servo actuator on the Pilatus PC-12, and asserts claims against L-3 Avionics and the Company based on negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, including punitive damages. On May 14, 2009, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case against Pilatus for lack of personal jurisdiction, vacated the trial court’s decision denying a motion to transfer the action to Colorado, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. Discovery was stayed during the pendency of the appeal, and the Company expects that additional discovery will be conducted in this matter involving the potential transfer to Colorado. The Company’s insurers have accepted defense of the matter and have retained counsel, subject to a reservation of rights by the insurers to dispute their obligations under the applicable insurance policies in the event of an adverse finding. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> <i>T-39 Sabreliner Aircraft.</i> On January 16, 2008, the Company was served with three wrongful death lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York arising from the crash of a T-39 Sabreliner Aircraft near Rome, GA on January 10, 2006. The Plaintiffs allege that L-3 Vertex employed the pilot in command, David Roark, and maintained the aircraft, and are seeking unspecified monetary damages. The cases have been consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. A mediation held in August 2008 was unsuccessful, and a settlement conference is scheduled for August 2009. The Company’s insurers have accepted defense of the matter and have retained counsel, subject to a reservation of rights by the insurers to dispute their obligations under the applicable insurance policies in the event of an adverse finding. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF"> <i>Blackhawk Helicopter.</i> On August 7, 2008, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas relating to the August 22, 2007 crash of a U.S. Army Blackhawk helicopter near Kirkuk, Iraq. The complaint, which was brought on behalf of 14 passengers who were killed in the crash, alleges that the crash was the result of L-3 Vertex’s negligence in connection with a phased maintenance inspection performed approximately one week before the crash, and seeks unspecified monetary damages, including punitive damages. The parties are currently conducting discovery in this matter. The Company’s insurers have accepted defense of this matter and have retained counsel, subject to a reservation of rights by the insurers to dispute their obligations under the applicable insurance policies in the event of an adverse finding. </div> </div> </body> </html>    false false No definition available. No authoritative reference available. false false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true