Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	23. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Contingencies in the Normal Course of Business As discussed in Note 6, satellite construction contracts may include performance incentives whereby payment for a portion of the purchase price of the satellite is contingent upon in-orbit performance of the satellite. The Company’s ultimate receipt of orbital performance incentives is subject to the continued performance of its satellites generally over the contractually stipulated life of the satellites. A complete or partial loss of a satellite’s functionality can result in loss of orbital receivable payments or repayment of amounts received by the Company under a warranty payback arrangement. The Company generally receives the present value of the orbital receivables if there is a launch failure or a failure caused by a customer error, but will forfeit some or all of the orbital receivables if the loss is caused by satellite failure or as a result of Company error. The Company recognizes orbital performance incentives in the financial statements based on the amounts that are expected to be received and believes that it will not incur a material loss relating to the incentives recognized. With respect to the Company’s securitized liability for the orbital receivables, upon the occurrence of an event of default under the securitization facility agreement or upon the occurrence of limited events, the Company may be required to repurchase on demand any affected receivables at their then net present value. As discussed in Note 6, the Company repurchased $24 million of specifically identified orbital receivables during the year ended December 31, 2019. The orbital receivables were repurchased as a result of our customer transferring the obligation to another entity which did not meet the credit criteria of our lenders The Company may incur liquidated damages on programs as a result of delays due to slippage, or for programs which fail to meet all milestone requirements as outlined within the contractual arrangements with customers. Losses on programs related to liquidated damages result in a reduction of revenue. Changes in estimates related to contracts accounted for using the cost-to-cost method of accounting are recognized in the period in which such changes are made for the inception-to-date effect of the changes. Unrecoverable costs on contracts that are expected to be incurred in future periods are recorded in program cost in the current period. The Company enters into agreements in the ordinary course of business with resellers and others. Most of these agreements require the Company to indemnify the other party against third-party claims alleging that one of its products infringes or misappropriates a patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right. Certain of these agreements require the Company to indemnify the other party against claims relating to property damage, personal injury or acts or omissions by the Company, its employees, agents or representatives. From time to time, the Company has made guarantees regarding the performance of its systems to its customers. Some of these agreements do not limit the maximum potential future payments the Company could be obligated to make. The Company evaluates and estimates potential losses from such indemnification based on the likelihood that the future event will occur. The Company has not incurred any material costs as a result of such obligations and has not accrued any liabilities related to such indemnification and guarantees in the Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company has entered into industrial cooperation agreements, sometimes referred to as offset agreements, as a condition to entering into contracts for its products and services from certain customers in foreign countries. These agreements are designed to return economic value to the foreign country and may be satisfied through activities that do not require a direct cash payment, including transferring technology, providing manufacturing, training and other consulting support to in-country projects. These agreements may provide for penalties in the event the Company fails to perform in accordance with offset requirements. The Company has historically not been required to pay any such penalties. Legal Proceedings In 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with a Ukrainian customer to provide a communication satellite system. In 2014, following the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, the Company declared force majeure with respect to the program. The Ukrainian customer accepted that an event of force majeure had occurred. Following various unsuccessful efforts to arrive at a new contractual framework to take account of the changed circumstances (including the force majeure and various financial issues), the contract with the Ukrainian customer was terminated by Maxar. Maxar completed work on the spacecraft, which is in storage. In July 2018, the Ukrainian customer issued a statement of claim in the arbitration it had commenced against Maxar, challenging the Company’s right to terminate for force majeure, purporting to terminate the contract for default by Maxar (a position since withdrawn), and seeking recovery from Maxar in the amount of approximately $227 million. The matter was heard by the arbitration panel in December 2019, and post-hearing briefs were submitted in January 2020. The Company presented a vigorous defense to the petitioner’s claims. The Company expects the arbitration panel to issue its ruling sometime this year. The Company has accrued an amount that it believes is within the range of probable outcomes for resolving this matter. However, the outcome of any arbitration is difficult to predict, and in the event that the arbitration results in a finding against the Company in excess of the amount reserved, the Company could incur additional amounts and its results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected. On January 14, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC in the District Court of Colorado (the “Colorado Action”), naming Maxar and members of management as defendants alleging, among other things, that the Company’s public disclosures were deficient in violation of the federal securities laws and seeking monetary damages. On August 7, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On October 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and members of management in connection with the Company’s public disclosures between March 26, 2018 and January 6, 2019. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company’s statements regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets, and WorldView-4 were allegedly false and/or misleading during the class period. On December 6, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the Colorado Action, which motion is currently pending. Also in January 2019, a Maxar stockholder resident in Canada issued a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O’Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00613564-00CP in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Maxar and members of management claiming misrepresentations in Maxar’s public disclosures and seeking monetary damages. On November 15, 2019, Mr. O’Brien and another Maxar stockholder resident in Canada issued a new putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O’Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00631107-00CP, naming Maxar and certain members of management and the board of directors as defendants as well as Maxar’s auditor, KPMG LLP. On February 7, 2020, the January 2019 claim was discontinued. The Statement of Claim alleges that the Company’s statements regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets, and WorldView-4 were false and/or misleading during the class period, and claims damages of $700 million. The Company believes that these cases are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. On October 21, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et al. No. T19-074 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, naming Maxar, and certain members of management and the board of directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company’s June 2, 2017 Registration Statement and prospectus filed in anticipation of its October 17, 2017 merger with DigitalGlobe. The lawsuit is based upon many of the same underlying factual allegations as the Colorado Action. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Company’s statements regarding its accounting methods and risk factors, including those related to the GEO communications business, were false and/or misleading when made. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. On November 14, 2019, a complaint was filed in a derivative action against Maxar and certain current and former members of management and the board of directors in federal court in the District of Delaware, captioned as Dorling, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant Maxar Technologies Inc. v. Lance et al., No. 19-cv-02134-UNA. The complaint concerns the same factual allegations as asserted in the Colorado Action. On February 7, 2020, the court granted the parties’ stipulated motion to stay this case. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. The Company is a party to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business as either a plaintiff or defendant. As a matter of course, the Company is prepared both to litigate these matters to judgment, as well as to evaluate and consider all reasonable settlement opportunities. The Company has established accrued liabilities for these matters where losses are deemed probable and reasonably estimable. The outcome of any of these other proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

23. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Contingencies in the Normal Course of Business

As discussed in Note 6, satellite construction contracts may include performance incentives whereby payment for a portion of the purchase price of the satellite is contingent upon in-orbit performance of the satellite. The Company’s ultimate receipt of orbital performance incentives is subject to the continued performance of its satellites generally over the contractually stipulated life of the satellites. A complete or partial loss of a satellite’s functionality can result in loss of orbital receivable payments or repayment of amounts received by the Company under a warranty payback arrangement. The Company generally receives the present value of the orbital receivables if there is a launch failure or a failure caused by a customer error, but will forfeit some or all of the orbital receivables if the loss is caused by satellite failure or as a result of Company error. The Company recognizes orbital performance incentives in the financial statements based on the amounts that are expected to be received and believes that it will not incur a material loss relating to the incentives recognized. With respect to the Company’s securitized liability for the orbital receivables, upon the occurrence of an event of default under the securitization facility agreement or upon the occurrence of limited events, the Company may be required to repurchase on demand any affected receivables at their then net present value. As discussed in Note 6, the Company repurchased $24 million of specifically identified orbital receivables during the year ended December 31, 2019. The orbital receivables were repurchased as a result of our customer transferring the obligation to another entity which did not meet the credit criteria of our lenders

The Company may incur liquidated damages on programs as a result of delays due to slippage, or for programs which fail to meet all milestone requirements as outlined within the contractual arrangements with customers. Losses on programs related to liquidated damages result in a reduction of revenue. Changes in estimates related to contracts accounted for using the cost-to-cost method of accounting are recognized in the period in which such changes are made for the inception-to-date effect of the changes. Unrecoverable costs on contracts that are expected to be incurred in future periods are recorded in program cost in the current period.

The Company enters into agreements in the ordinary course of business with resellers and others. Most of these agreements require the Company to indemnify the other party against third-party claims alleging that one of its products infringes or misappropriates a patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right. Certain of these agreements require the Company to indemnify the other party against claims relating to property damage, personal injury or acts or omissions by the Company, its employees, agents or representatives.

From time to time, the Company has made guarantees regarding the performance of its systems to its customers. Some of these agreements do not limit the maximum potential future payments the Company could be obligated to make. The Company evaluates and estimates potential losses from such indemnification based on the likelihood that the future event will occur. The Company has not incurred any material costs as a result of such obligations and has not accrued any liabilities related to such indemnification and guarantees in the Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company has entered into industrial cooperation agreements, sometimes referred to as offset agreements, as a condition to entering into contracts for its products and services from certain customers in foreign countries. These agreements are designed to return economic value to the foreign country and may be satisfied through activities that do not require a direct cash payment, including transferring technology, providing manufacturing, training and other consulting support to in-country projects. These agreements may provide for penalties in the event the Company fails to perform in accordance with offset requirements. The Company has historically not been required to pay any such penalties.

Legal Proceedings

In 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with a Ukrainian customer to provide a communication satellite system. In 2014, following the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, the Company declared force majeure with respect to the program. The Ukrainian customer accepted that an event of force majeure had occurred. Following various unsuccessful efforts to arrive at a new contractual framework to take account of the changed circumstances (including the force majeure and various financial issues), the contract with the Ukrainian customer was terminated by Maxar. Maxar completed work on the spacecraft, which is in storage. In July 2018, the Ukrainian customer issued a statement of claim in the arbitration it had commenced against Maxar, challenging the Company’s right to terminate for force majeure, purporting to terminate the contract for default by Maxar (a position since withdrawn), and seeking recovery from Maxar in the amount of approximately $227 million. The matter was heard by the arbitration panel in December 2019, and post-hearing briefs were submitted in January 2020. The Company presented a vigorous defense to the petitioner’s claims. The Company expects the arbitration panel to issue its ruling sometime this year. The Company has accrued an amount that it believes is within the range of probable outcomes for resolving this matter. However, the outcome of any arbitration is difficult to predict, and in the event that the arbitration results in a finding against the Company in excess of the amount reserved, the Company could incur additional amounts and its results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

On January 14, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC in the District Court of Colorado (the “Colorado Action”), naming Maxar and members of management as defendants alleging, among other things, that the Company’s public disclosures were deficient in violation of the federal securities laws and seeking monetary damages. On August 7, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On October 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and members of management in connection with the Company’s public disclosures between March 26, 2018 and January 6, 2019. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company’s statements regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets, and WorldView-4 were allegedly false and/or misleading during the class period. On December 6, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the Colorado Action, which motion is currently pending. Also in January 2019, a Maxar stockholder resident in Canada issued a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O’Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00613564-00CP in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Maxar and members of management claiming misrepresentations in Maxar’s public disclosures and seeking monetary damages. On November 15, 2019, Mr. O’Brien and another Maxar stockholder resident in Canada issued a new putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O’Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00631107-00CP, naming Maxar and certain members of management and the board of directors as defendants as well as Maxar’s auditor, KPMG LLP. On February 7, 2020, the January 2019 claim was discontinued. The Statement of Claim alleges that the Company’s statements regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets, and WorldView-4 were false and/or misleading during the class period, and claims damages of $700 million. The Company believes that these cases are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

On October 21, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et al. No. T19-074 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, naming Maxar, and certain members of management and the board of directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company’s June 2, 2017 Registration Statement and prospectus filed in anticipation of its October 17, 2017 merger with DigitalGlobe. The lawsuit is based upon many of the same underlying factual allegations as the Colorado Action. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Company’s statements regarding its accounting methods and risk factors, including those related to the GEO communications business, were false and/or misleading when made. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.

On November 14, 2019, a complaint was filed in a derivative action against Maxar and certain current and former members of management and the board of directors in federal court in the District of Delaware, captioned as Dorling,

Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant Maxar Technologies Inc. v. Lance et al., No. 19-cv-02134-UNA. The complaint concerns the same factual allegations as asserted in the Colorado Action. On February 7, 2020, the court granted the parties’ stipulated motion to stay this case.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. The Company is a party to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business as either a plaintiff or defendant. As a matter of course, the Company is prepared both to litigate these matters to judgment, as well as to evaluate and consider all reasonable settlement opportunities. The Company has established accrued liabilities for these matters where losses are deemed probable and reasonably estimable. The outcome of any of these other proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity.