Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Litigation

From time to time we are subject to, and are presently involved in, litigation or other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. While the final outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, considering, among other things, the meritorious legal defenses available, it is the opinion of the Company that none of these items, when finally resolved, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s long-term financial position or liquidity. Consistent with the requirements of authoritative guidance on accounting for contingencies, we had an accrual of less than $1.0 and zero at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. However, an unexpected adverse resolution of one or more of these items could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations and cash flows in a particular quarter or fiscal year.

From time to time, in the ordinary course of business and like others in the industry, we receive requests for information from government agencies in connection with their regulatory or investigational authority. Such requests can include subpoenas or demand letters for documents to assist the government in audits or investigations. We review such requests and notices and take appropriate action. We have been subject to certain requests for information and investigations in the past and could be subject to such requests for information and investigations in the future. Additionally, we are subject to federal and state requirements for protection of the environment, including those for disposal of hazardous waste and remediation of contaminated sites. As a result, we are required to participate in certain government investigations regarding environmental remediation actions.

In December 2005, a federal grand jury sitting in Topeka, Kansas issued subpoenas regarding the vapor degreasing equipment at our Wichita, Kansas facility. The government’s investigation appeared to focus on whether the degreasers were operating within permit parameters and whether chemical wastes from the degreasers were disposed of properly. The subpoenas covered a time period both before and after our purchase of the Wichita, Kansas facility. Subpoenas were issued to Boeing, Spirit and individuals who were employed by Boeing prior to the Boeing Acquisition, but are now employed by us. We responded to the subpoena and provided additional information to the government as requested. On March 25, 2008, the U.S. Attorney’s Office informed the Company that it was closing its criminal file on the investigation. We understand that a civil investigation into this matter may be ongoing but the Company has not been contacted about this matter since the closing of the criminal investigation. Management believes the resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

On February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The defendants were served in early July 2007. The defendants included Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc. Retirement Plan for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita Technical and Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and the Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along with Boeing and Boeing retirement and health plan entities. The named plaintiffs are twelve former Boeing employees, eight of whom were or are employees of Spirit. The plaintiffs assert several claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and general contract law and brought the case as a class action on behalf of similarly situated individuals. The putative class consists of approximately 2,500 current or former employees of Spirit. The parties agreed to class certification. The sub-class members who asserted claims against the Spirit entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005, were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas, were participants in the Boeing pension plan, had at least 10 years of vesting service in the Boeing plan, were in jobs represented by a union, were between the ages of 49 and 55, and who went to work for Spirit on or about June 17, 2005. Although there were many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs’ claims against the Spirit entities, asserted under various theories, were (1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed to determine that certain plaintiffs are entitled to early retirement “bridging rights” to pension and retiree medical benefits that were allegedly triggered by their separation from employment by Boeing and (2) that the plaintiffs’ pension benefits were unlawfully transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed early retirement “bridging rights” are not being afforded these individuals as a result of their separation from Boeing, thereby decreasing their benefits. The plaintiffs initially sought a declaration that they were entitled to the early retirement pension benefits and retiree medical benefits, an injunction ordering that the defendants provide the benefits, damages pursuant to breach of contract claims and attorney fees. On June 20, 2013, the district court entered an order dismissing all claims against the Spirit entities with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ claims against Boeing entities remain pending in the litigation. Boeing has notified Spirit that it believes it is entitled to indemnification from Spirit for any “indemnifiable damages” it may incur in the Harkness litigation, under the terms of the asset purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition between Boeing and Spirit. Spirit disputes Boeing’s position on indemnity. Management believes the resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

On July 21, 2005, the International Union, Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“UAW”) filed a grievance against Boeing on behalf of certain former Boeing employees in Tulsa and McAlester, Oklahoma, regarding issues that parallel those asserted in Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et al. Boeing denied the grievance, and the UAW subsequently filed suit to compel arbitration, which the parties eventually agreed to pursue. The arbitration was conducted in January 2008. In July 2008, the arbitrator issued an opinion and award in favor of the UAW. The arbitrator directed Boeing to reinstate the seniority of the employees and “afford them the benefits appurtenant thereto.” On March 5, 2009, the arbitrator entered an Opinion and Supplemental Award that directed Boeing to award certain benefits to UAW members upon whose behalf the grievance was brought, notwithstanding the prior denial of such benefits by the Boeing Plan Administrator. On April 10, 2009, Boeing filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking a ruling that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in granting the Supplemental Award. On September 16, 2009, the District Court entered an order affirming the arbitrator’s Supplemental Award. Boeing appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the District Court’s decision. Boeing previously notified Spirit of its intent to seek indemnification from Spirit for any “indemnifiable damages” it may incur in the UAW matter, pursuant to the terms of the asset purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition. Spirit disputes Boeing’s position on indemnity. Management believes the resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

On May 11, 2009, Spirit filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against SPS Technologies LLC (“SPS”) and Precision Castparts Corp. Spirit’s claims are based on the sale by SPS of certain non-conforming nut plate fasteners to Spirit between August 2007 and August 2008. Many of the fasteners were used on assemblies that Spirit sold to a customer. In the fall of 2008, Spirit discovered the non-conformity and notified the customer of the discrepancy. Subsequently, Spirit and the customer removed and replaced nut plates on various in-process aircraft assemblies and subsequently agreed to an appropriate cost related to those efforts. Spirit’s lawsuit seeks damages, including damages related to these efforts, under various theories, including breach of contract and breach of implied warranty.

On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced against the Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The named plaintiff, who alleges that he is a purchaser of Holdings securities, alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations and omissions in the Company’s public disclosures about the circumstances underlying the Company’s accrual of $590.0 in forward loss charges in the third quarter of 2012. The lawsuit seeks certification of a class of all persons other than defendants who purchased Holdings securities between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2012, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the putative class. On February 5, 2014, the Court entered an order naming two lead plaintiffs. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these allegations, and management believes the resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.

In August 2013, the Company instituted a demand for arbitration against Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation. Spirit seeks damages from Gulfstream for its incomplete payments to Spirit for the wings Spirit manufactures for the G650 airplane, as well as other damages and relief. Gulfstream counterclaimed against Spirit in the arbitration, seeking liquidated damages for delayed deliveries of wings, as well as other damages and relief. The parties have selected arbitrators, and currently expect the arbitration hearing will take place in the first quarter of 2015. The Company intends to vigorously prosecute and defend the claims in arbitration. Management believes the resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company's financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

In October 2012, Spirit was advised by the Staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission that they are conducting an inquiry that the Company believes to be focused on the timing of forward losses recognized in the third quarter of 2012. The Company is fully cooperating with the inquiry. The Company cannot predict or determine whether any proceeding may be instituted as a result of the inquiry or the outcome of any proceeding that may be instituted.

Commitments

The Company leases equipment and facilities under various non-cancelable capital and operating leases. The capital leasing arrangements extend through 2025. Minimum future lease payments under these leases at December 31, 2013 are as follows:



			Capital
	Operating		Present Value		Interest		Total
2014	$	20.8	$	1.1	$	0.5	$	22.4
2015	$	17.3	$	1.1	$	0.5	$	18.9
2016	$	10.6	$	1.0	$	0.5	$	12.1
2017	$	5.2	$	1.0	$	0.4	$	6.6
2018	$	4.9	$	1.1	$	0.4	$	6.4
2019 and thereafter	$	14.7	$	10.1	$	8.8	$	33.6

Operating lease payments were as follows:



	2013		2012		2011
Minimum rentals	$	22.6	$	19.6	$	20.2
Contingent rentals	—		—		—
Less: Sub-lease	—		—		—
Total	$	22.6	$	19.6	$	20.2

Spirit's aggregate capital commitments totaled $226.0 and $264.8 at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

The Company paid $0.9 and $1.2 in interest expense related to the capital leases for periods ending December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

Guarantees

Contingent liabilities in the form of letters of credit, letters of guarantee and performance bonds have been provided by the Company. These letters of credit reduce the amount of borrowings available under the revolving credit facility. As of both December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, outstanding letters of credit were $19.9. Outstanding guarantees were $24.8 and $25.6 at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

Indemnification

The Company has entered into customary indemnification agreements with each of its Directors, and some of its executive employment agreements include indemnification provisions. Under those agreements, the Company agrees to indemnify each of these individuals against claims arising out of events or occurrences related to that individual's service as the Company's agent or the agent of any of its subsidiaries to the fullest extent legally permitted.

Service and Product Warranties and Extraordinary Rework

The Company provides service and warranty policies on its products. Liability under service and warranty policies is based upon specific claims and a review of historical warranty and service claim experience. Adjustments are made to accruals as claim data and historical experience change. In addition, the Company incurs discretionary costs to service its products in connection with product performance or quality issues.

The following is a roll forward of the service warranty and extraordinary rework balance at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012:



	2013			2012
Balance, January 1	$	30.9		$	19.6
Charges to costs and expenses	38.3			12.0
Write-offs, net of recoveries	(0.6		)	(0.9		)
Exchange rate	0.1			0.2
Balance, December 31	$	68.7		$	30.9

Bonds

Spirit utilized City of Wichita issued Industrial Revenue Bonds ("IRBs") to finance self-constructed and purchased real and personal property at the Wichita site. Tax benefits associated with IRBs include provisions for a ten-year complete property tax abatement and a Kansas Department of Revenue sales tax exemption on all IRB funded purchases. Spirit and the Predecessor purchased these IRBs so they are bondholders and debtor / lessee for the property purchased with the IRB proceeds.

Spirit recorded the property on its consolidated balance sheet in accordance with FASB authoritative guidance, along with a capital lease obligation to repay the IRB proceeds. Therefore, Spirit and the Predecessor have exercised their right to offset the amounts invested and obligations for these bonds on a consolidated basis. The assets and liabilities associated with these IRBs were $394.7 and $345.7 at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

Spirit utilized $80.0 in Kansas Development Finance Authority ("KDFA") issued bonds to receive a rebate of payroll taxes from the Kansas Department of Revenue to KDFA bondholders. Concurrently, a Spirit subsidiary issued an intercompany note with identical principal, terms, and conditions to the KDFA bonds. In accordance with FASB authoritative guidance, the principal and interest payments on these bonds offset in the consolidated financial statements.