2.2.0.7 false Commitments and Contingencies 0217 - Disclosure - Commitments and Contingencies true false false false 1 USD false false USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 Shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Pure Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance pure xbrli 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 Commitments and Contingencies. false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string Commitments and Contingencies. false 3 Commitments and Contingencies 1 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false verboselabel false 1 false false false false 0 0   <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: transparent; text-align: left"> <tr> <td width="2%"></td> <td width="98%"></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td> <b><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">17. </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%; text-indent: 2%; 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, including those specified below, from which civil, criminal or administrative proceedings have or 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, or an administrative finding against the Company as to its present responsibility to be a U.S. Government contractor or subcontractor, could result in the Company being suspended for a period of time from eligibility for awards of new government contracts or task orders or in a loss of export privileges. A conviction, or an administrative finding against the Company that satisfies the requisite level of seriousness, 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: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #ffffff"> The Company is also subject to and is involved in litigation, 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 the accounting standard for contingencies, 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 are disclosed in Note 8. Amounts recoverable from insurance contracts or third parties are recorded as assets when deemed probable. At June 25, 2010, 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 and government investigation 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 matters discussed below unless otherwise stated, 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, these matters are inherently unpredictable, including those that are expected to be resolved with jury trials, for which outcomes are difficult to predict. 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 or other contingencies. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #ffffff"> <i>Kalitta Air.</i> On January 31, 1997, a predecessor of Kalitta Air filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the trial court) asserting, among other things, negligence and negligent misrepresentation against Central Texas Airborne Systems, Inc. (CTAS), a predecessor to L-3 Integrated Systems (L-3 IS), in connection with work performed by a predecessor to CTAS to convert two Boeing 747 aircraft from passenger configuration to cargo freighters. The work was performed using Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) issued in 1988 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 1996, following completion of the work, the FAA issued an airworthiness directive with respect to the STCs that effectively grounded the aircraft. On August 11, 2000, the trial court granted CTAS’ motion for summary judgment as to negligence, dismissing that claim. In January 2001, after a ruling by the trial court that excluded certain evidence from trial, a jury rendered a unanimous defense verdict in favor of CTAS on the negligent misrepresentation claim. On December 10, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Court of Appeals) reversed the trial court’s decisions as to summary judgment and the exclusion of evidence, and remanded the case for a new trial on both the negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims. The retrial ended on March 2, 2005 with a deadlocked jury and mistrial. On July 22, 2005, the trial court granted CTAS’ motion for judgment as a matter of law as to negligence, dismissing that claim, and denied CTAS’ motion for judgment as a matter of law as to negligent misrepresentation. On October 8, 2008, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the negligence claim and affirmed the trial court’s ruling as to the negligent misrepresentation claim. As a result, the case was remanded to the trial court to reconsider the negligence claim and for further proceedings on the negligent misrepresentation claim. The trial court held a new hearing on CTAS’ motion to dismiss the negligence claim on April 30, 2009, after which it determined to take the matter under advisement. The case is currently scheduled to go to a third trial on November 1, 2010. The parties have participated in court-ordered mediations from time to time, and are expected to participate in future court-ordered mediations prior to trial, but to date such mediations have not resulted in a mutually acceptable resolution of this matter. In connection with these mediations, Kalitta Air has claimed it may seek damages at the third trial of between $430 million and $900 million, including between $200 million and $240 million of pre-judgment interest. CTAS’ insurance carrier has accepted defense of this 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 a finding against L-3. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted and the damages sought and intends to defend itself vigorously. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging that 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. During the trial that began on May 4, 2009, Lockheed sought disgorgement of the monies paid or payable to L-3 IS under the subcontract (which Lockheed claims to be approximately $315 million) or, under an alternative theory of damages, royalties of approximately $20 million. On May 21, 2009, a jury found in favor of Lockheed and awarded $30 million on the misappropriation claim, approximately $7 million on the breach of license agreement claim, plus legal fees and expenses. On March 31, 2010, the court set aside the jury verdict and ordered a new trial based on its findings that Lockheed withheld certain documents from L-3 IS that were required to be produced as part of pre-trial discovery. The date for the new trial has not yet been scheduled. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #ffffff"> <i>SSPD Investigation.</i>  On June 4, 2010, the Company received notice that Integrated Systems’ Special Support Programs Division (L-3 SSPD, formerly known as L-3 Joint Operations Group or JOG) had been temporarily suspended from receiving new contracts or orders from U.S. Government agencies in connection with a governmental investigation into allegations that L-3 SSPD had inappropriately monitored e-mail messages on a Special Operations Forces Support Authority (SOFSA) computer network administered by L-3 SSPD. On July 27, 2010, the Company and the U.S. Air Force entered into an administrative agreement under which the Air Force lifted the temporary suspension and L-3 agreed, among other things, to provide periodic reporting to the Air Force regarding its ethics and compliance programs and not to protest the award of the <font style="white-space: nowrap">follow-on</font> SOFSA contract to a competitor. Although the governmental investigation is ongoing, evidence in the record to date suggests that government emails were not intentionally collected and were not reviewed, opened, or used by L-3. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #ffffff"> <i>Derivative Action.</i>  On July 15, 2010, a stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against the Company’s directors and also against the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based on allegations that the Company’s directors acquiesced in, or failed to prevent, the purported inappropriate conduct at issue in the <i>SSPD Investigation</i> matter described above. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages, equitable relief and an award of fees and expenses. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; 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 November 2006 and December 2007 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. 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: 2%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #ffffff"> <i>Titan Government Investigation.</i> In October 2002, The Titan Corporation (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. In December 2008, the DoJ contacted the Company to arrange additional employee interviews concerning a teaming agreement relating to the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base procurement. In January 2010, counsel for the Company was again informed by the New York Field Office that it was considering indictment. If the Field Office recommends indictment then, under normal DoJ procedures, Titan (now known as L-3 Services, Inc.) 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 current or former 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. 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: 2%; 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 and has been asked to facilitate employee interviews. The Company is cooperating fully with the U.S. Government. The Company believes that it is entitled to indemnification for any course of defense related to this matter out of, and has made a claim against, a $15 million escrow fund established in connection with the Company’s acquisition of 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: 2%; 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 this matter and have retained counsel. The matters were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of 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. On March 9, 2010, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and entered judgment against ACSS in the amount of approximately $6.7 million, all of which represented compensatory damages. The Company believes that the verdict and the damages awarded are inconsistent with the law and evidence presented. Accordingly, ACSS filed an appeal of this ruling on April 27, 2010. The plaintiffs also filed an appeal of this ruling on the same date. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: #ffffff"> <i>Gol Airlines.</i> A complaint was filed on November 7, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against ExcelAire, Joseph Lepore, Jan Paul Paladino, and Honeywell. On October 23, 2007, an amended complaint was filed to include Lockheed, Raytheon, 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. On July 2, 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 December 2, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld this decision. 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>  <!-- Begin Block Tagged Note false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Includes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables. Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true