Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

3 Months Ended

Mar. 28, 2013

Commitments Contingencies And Guarantees [Abstract]

Commitments Contingencies And Guarantees [Text Block]

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 no accruals at March 28, 2013 for loss contingencies. However, an unexpected adverse resolution of one or more of these items could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations 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 lawsuit was filed against Spirit, Onex and Boeing alleging age discrimination in the hiring of employees by Spirit when Boeing sold its Wichita commercial division to Onex. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas and seeks class-action status, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and more than $1.5 billion in punitive damages. The asset purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition requires Spirit to indemnify Boeing for damages resulting from the employment decisions that were made by us with respect to former employees of Boeing Wichita, which relate or allegedly relate to the involvement of, or consultation with, employees of Boeing in such employment decisions. On June 30, 2010, the U.S. District Court granted defendants' dispositive motions, finding that the case should not be allowed to proceed as a class action. Following plaintiffs' appeal, on August 27, 2012 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling in all respects. The district court has now set certain deadlines for certain prospective plaintiffs to bring individual claims. In the event this litigation continues, the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself. Management believes the resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company's financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

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. A civil investigation into this matter is ongoing. 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 include 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 have 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 are many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs' claims against the Spirit entities, asserted under various theories, are (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 are 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. Discovery is now complete and currently pending is a motion filed jointly by plaintiffs and Spirit on September 25, 2012 to dismiss all claims against Spirit with prejudice. Notices of a fairness hearing related to Spirit's dismissal from this lawsuit have been sent to class members. Plaintiffs' claims against Boeing entities are not subject to the motion and will 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.

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 March 28, 2013 and December 31, 2012, outstanding letters of credit were $19.9. Outstanding guarantees were $25.0 and $25.6 at March 28, 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 March 28, 2013:

Balance, December 31, 2012	$	30.9
Charges to costs and expenses		10.2
Write-offs, net of recoveries		(0.2)
Exchange rate		(0.3)
Balance, March 28, 2013	$	40.6