Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies	Note 14 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies We are a party to or have property subject to litigation and other proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment and are subject to contingencies related to certain businesses we previously owned. These types of matters could result in fines, penalties, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary sanctions or relief. We believe the probability is remote that the outcome of each of these matters, including the legal proceedings described below, will have a material adverse effect on the Corporation as a whole, notwithstanding that the unfavorable resolution of any matter may have a material effect on our net earnings in any particular interim reporting period. Among the factors that we consider in this assessment are the nature of existing legal proceedings and claims, the asserted or possible damages or loss contingency (if estimable), the progress of the case, existing law and precedent, the opinions or views of legal counsel and other advisers, our experience in similar cases and the experience of other companies, the facts available to us at the time of assessment and how we intend to respond to the proceeding or claim. Our assessment of these factors may change over time as individual proceedings or claims progress. Although we cannot predict the outcome of legal or other proceedings with certainty, where there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred, GAAP requires us to disclose an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss or make a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. We follow a thorough process in which we seek to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, and only if we are unable to make such an estimate do we conclude and disclose that an estimate cannot be made. Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated below in our discussion of legal proceedings, a reasonably possible loss or range of loss associated with any individual legal proceeding cannot be estimated. Legal Proceedings As a result of our acquisition of Sikorsky, we have assumed the defense of and any potential liability for the following civil False Claims Act lawsuit. In October 2014, the U.S. Government filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging that Sikorsky and two of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Derco Aerospace (Derco) and Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. (SSSI), violated the civil False Claims Act in connection with a contract that the U.S. Navy awarded to SSSI in June 2006 to support the Navy’s T-34 and T-44 fixed-wing turboprop training aircraft. SSSI subcontracted with Derco primarily to procure and manage the spare parts for the training aircraft. The Government alleges that SSSI overbilled the Navy on the contract because Derco added profit and overhead costs to the price of the spare parts that Derco procured and then sold to SSSI. The Government also claims that SSSI submitted false Certificates of Final Indirect Costs in the years 2006 through 2012. The Government’s complaint asserts numerous claims for violations of the False Claims Act, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In a late April 2015 court filing, the Government disclosed that it seeks damages of approximately $45 million, subject to trebling, plus statutory penalties of approximately $13 million, all totaling approximately $147 million. We believe that we have substantial legal and factual defenses to the government’s claims. Although we continue to evaluate liability and exposure, we do not currently believe that it is probable that we will incur a material loss. If, contrary to our expectations, the Government prevails in this matter and proves damages at the high end of the range sought and is successful in having these trebled, the outcome could have an adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which a liability is recognized and on our cash flows for the period in which any damages are paid. Additionally, by letter dated July 13, 2015, the United States Department of Justice notified Sikorsky that it had opened a criminal investigation into this matter, and requested that Sikorsky and its two subsidiaries voluntarily produce documents. Sikorsky and its subsidiaries cooperated fully in the investigation. On February 4, 2016, we were informed that the Department of Justice is closing the criminal investigation with no action to the corporate entities or individuals. On April 24, 2009, we filed a declaratory judgment action against the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority and its Capital Construction Company (collectively, the MTA) asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to find that the MTA is in material breach of our agreement based on the MTA’s failure to provide access to sites where work must be performed and the customer-furnished equipment necessary to complete the contract. The MTA filed an answer and counterclaim alleging that we breached the contract and subsequently terminated the contract for alleged default. The primary damages sought by the MTA are the cost to complete the contract and potential re-procurement costs. While we are unable to estimate the cost of another contractor to complete the contract and the costs of re-procurement, we note that our contract with the MTA had a total value of $323 million, of which $241 million was paid to us, and that the MTA is seeking damages of approximately $190 million. We dispute the MTA’s allegations and are defending against them. Additionally, following an investigation, our sureties on a performance bond related to this matter, who were represented by independent counsel, concluded that the MTA’s termination of the contract was improper. Finally, our declaratory judgment action was later amended to include claims for monetary damages against the MTA of approximately $95 million. This matter was taken under submission by the District Court in December 2014, after a five-week bench trial and the filing of post-trial pleadings by the parties. We expect a decision in 2016. We have reached an agreement to settle with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the qui tam relators two lawsuits in which the DOJ filed complaints in partial intervention on August 28, 2003. The lawsuits, United States ex rel. Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, et al., and United States ex rel. John D. Tillson v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., et al., were filed by the relators in 1999 under the civil qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky and alleged that we committed violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant by not properly handling, storing and transporting hazardous waste and that we violated the False Claims Act by misleading Department of Energy officials and state regulators about the nature and extent of environmental noncompliance at the plant. The parties are finalizing the terms of the settlement agreement, which is considered a tentative agreement until it is formally approved by the United States Government. The amount of the settlement is not material. We believe that we have substantial defenses to all of the allegations and have agreed to settle the case to avoid the costs of further litigation of this matter which has been ongoing in excess of sixteen years. We will admit no liability or wrongdoing in resolving the matter. See Item 3 - Legal Proceedings of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 for additional information. Environmental Matters We are involved in environmental proceedings and potential proceedings relating to soil and groundwater contamination, disposal of hazardous waste and other environmental matters at several of our current or former facilities or at third-party sites where we have been designated as a potentially responsible party (PRP). A substantial portion of environmental costs will be included in our net sales and cost of sales in future periods pursuant to U.S. Government regulations. At the time a liability is recorded for future environmental costs, we record a receivable for estimated future recovery considered probable through the pricing of products and services to agencies of the U.S. Government, regardless of the contract form (e.g., cost-reimbursable, fixed-price). We continuously evaluate the recoverability of our environmental receivables by assessing, among other factors, U.S. Government regulations, our U.S. Government business base and contract mix and our history of receiving reimbursement of such costs. We include the portion of those environmental costs expected to be allocated to our non-U.S. Government contracts, or that is determined to not be recoverable under U.S. Government contracts, in our cost of sales at the time the liability is established. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the aggregate amount of liabilities recorded relative to environmental matters was $1.0 billion and $965 million, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent liabilities on our Balance Sheets. We have recorded receivables totaling $858 million and $836 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent assets on our Balance Sheets, for the estimated future recovery of these costs, as we consider the recovery probable based on the factors previously mentioned. We project costs and recovery of costs over approximately 20 years. Our acquisition of Sikorsky included certain environmental remediation liabilities that are among those recorded on our Balance Sheet, along with the related receivables for probable future recovery. These amounts did not materially impact our consolidated financial statements. Environmental cleanup activities usually span several years, which makes estimating liabilities a matter of judgment because of uncertainties with respect to assessing the extent of the contamination as well as such factors as changing remediation technologies and continually evolving regulatory environmental standards. There are a number of former operating facilities that we are monitoring or investigating for potential future remediation. We perform quarterly reviews of the status of our environmental remediation sites and the related liabilities and receivables. Additionally, in our quarterly reviews we consider these and other factors in estimating the timing and amount of any future costs that may be required for remediation activities and record a liability when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the loss can be reasonably estimated. The amount of liability recorded is based on our estimate of the costs to be incurred for remediation at a particular site. We do not discount the recorded liabilities, as the amount and timing of future cash payments are not fixed or cannot be reliably determined. We reasonably cannot determine the extent of our financial exposure in all cases as, although a loss may be probable or reasonably possible, in some cases it is not possible at this time to estimate the loss or reasonably possible loss or range of loss. We also are pursuing claims for recovery of costs incurred or contribution to site cleanup costs against other PRPs, including the U.S. Government, and are conducting remediation activities under various consent decrees and orders relating to soil, groundwater, sediment or surface water contamination at certain sites of former or current operations. Under an agreement related to our Burbank and Glendale, California, sites, the U.S. Government reimburses us an amount equal to approximately 50% of expenditures for certain remediation activities in its capacity as a PRP under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). On July 1, 2014, a regulation became effective in California setting the maximum level of the contaminant hexavalent chromium in drinking water at 10 parts per billion (ppb). In May 2014, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association filed a suit alleging the 10 ppb threshold is lower than is required to protect public health and thus imposes unjustified costs on the regulated community. We cannot predict the outcome of this suit or whether other challenges may be advanced by the regulated community or environmental groups which had sought a significantly higher and lower standard, respectively. If the new standard remains at 10 ppb, it will not have a material impact on our existing remediation costs in California. In addition, California is reevaluating its existing drinking water standard with respect to a second contaminant, perchlorate, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is also considering whether to regulate perchlorate and hexavalent chromium in drinking water. In February 2016, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed suit in federal court in New York against the U.S. EPA to compel the U.S. EPA to set an enforceable drinking water standard for perchlorate. If substantially lower standards are adopted, in either California or at the federal level, for perchlorate, or if the U.S. EPA were to adopt a standard for hexavalent chromium lower than 10 ppb, we expect a material increase in our estimates for environmental liabilities and the related assets for the portion of the increased costs that are probable of future recovery in the pricing of our products and services for the U.S. Government. The amount that would be allocable to our non-U.S. Government contracts or that is determined to not be recoverable under U.S. Government contracts would be expensed, which may have a material effect on our earnings in any particular interim reporting period. Operating Leases We rent certain equipment and facilities under operating leases. Certain major plant facilities and equipment are furnished by the U.S. Government under short-term or cancelable arrangements. Our total rental expense under operating leases was $256 million, $258 million and $315 million for 2015, 2014 and 2013. Future minimum lease commitments at December 31, 2015 for long-term non-cancelable operating leases were $793 million ($205 million in 2016, $161 million in 2017, $128 million in 2018, $101 million in 2019, $64 million in 2020 and $134 million in later years). Letters of Credit, Surety Bonds and Third-Party Guarantees We have entered into standby letters of credit, surety bonds and third-party guarantees with financial institutions and other third parties primarily relating to advances received from customers and the guarantee of future performance on certain contracts. Letters of credit and surety bonds generally are available for draw down in the event we do not perform. In some cases, we may guarantee the contractual performance of third parties such as venture partners. We had total outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds and third-party guarantees aggregating $3.8 billion at December 31, 2015 and $2.4 billion at December 31, 2014. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, third-party guarantees totaled $678 million and $774 million, of which approximately 79% and 85% related to guarantees of contractual performance of ventures to which we currently are or previously were a party. This amount represents our estimate of the maximum amount we would expect to incur upon the contractual non-performance of the venture partners. In addition, we generally have cross-indemnities in place that may enable us to recover amounts that may be paid on behalf of a venture partner. We believe our current and former venture partners will be able to perform their obligations, as they have done through December 31, 2015, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the guarantees. In determining our exposures, we evaluate the reputation, technical capabilities and credit quality of our current and former venture partners. There were no material amounts recorded in our financial statements related to third-party guarantees. United Launch Alliance In connection with our 50% ownership interest of ULA, we and The Boeing Company (Boeing) are required to provide ULA an additional capital contribution if ULA is unable to make required payments under its inventory supply agreement with Boeing. As of December 31, 2015, ULA’s total remaining obligation to Boeing under the inventory supply agreement was $120 million. The parties have agreed to defer the remaining payment obligation, as it is more than offset by other commitments to ULA. Accordingly, we do not expect to be required to make a capital contribution to ULA under this agreement. In addition, both we and Boeing have cross-indemnified each other for guarantees by us and Boeing of the performance and financial obligations of ULA under certain launch service contracts. We believe ULA will be able to fully perform its obligations, as it has done through December 31, 2015, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the cross-indemnities or guarantees. Our 50% ownership share of ULA’s net assets exceeded the book value of our investment by approximately $395 million (of which approximately $40 million remains at December 31, 2015 that will be amortized in 2016). This yearly amortization and our share of ULA’s net earnings are reported as equity in net earnings (losses) of equity investees in other income, net on our Statements of Earnings. Our investment in ULA totaled $748 million and $706 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014.

Note 14 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies

We are a party to or have property subject to litigation and other proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment and are subject to contingencies related to certain businesses we previously owned. These types of matters could result in fines, penalties, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary sanctions or relief. We believe the probability is remote that the outcome of each of these matters, including the legal proceedings described below, will have a material adverse effect on the Corporation as a whole, notwithstanding that the unfavorable resolution of any matter may have a material effect on our net earnings in any particular interim reporting period. Among the factors that we consider in this assessment are the nature of existing legal proceedings and claims, the asserted or possible damages or loss contingency (if estimable), the progress of the case, existing law and precedent, the opinions or views of legal counsel and other advisers, our experience in similar cases and the experience of other companies, the facts available to us at the time of assessment and how we intend to respond to the proceeding or claim. Our assessment of these factors may change over time as individual proceedings or claims progress.

Although we cannot predict the outcome of legal or other proceedings with certainty, where there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred, GAAP requires us to disclose an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss or make a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. We follow a thorough process in which we seek to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, and only if we are unable to make such an estimate do we conclude and disclose that an estimate cannot be made. Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated below in our discussion of legal proceedings, a reasonably possible loss or range of loss associated with any individual legal proceeding cannot be estimated.

Legal Proceedings

As a result of our acquisition of Sikorsky, we have assumed the defense of and any potential liability for the following civil False Claims Act lawsuit. In October 2014, the U.S. Government filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging that Sikorsky and two of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Derco Aerospace (Derco) and Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. (SSSI), violated the civil False Claims Act in connection with a contract that the U.S. Navy awarded to SSSI in June 2006 to support the Navy’s T-34 and T-44 fixed-wing turboprop training aircraft. SSSI subcontracted with Derco primarily to procure and manage the spare parts for the training aircraft. The Government alleges that SSSI overbilled the Navy on the contract because Derco added profit and overhead costs to the price of the spare parts that Derco procured and then sold to SSSI. The Government also claims that SSSI submitted false Certificates of Final Indirect Costs in the years 2006 through 2012.

The Government’s complaint asserts numerous claims for violations of the False Claims Act, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In a late April 2015 court filing, the Government disclosed that it seeks damages of approximately $45 million, subject to trebling, plus statutory penalties of approximately $13 million, all totaling approximately $147 million. We believe that we have substantial legal and factual defenses to the government’s claims. Although we continue to evaluate liability and exposure, we do not currently believe that it is probable that we will incur a material loss. If, contrary to our expectations, the Government prevails in this matter and proves damages at the high end of the range sought and is successful in having these trebled, the outcome could have an adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which a liability is recognized and on our cash flows for the period in which any damages are paid.

Additionally, by letter dated July 13, 2015, the United States Department of Justice notified Sikorsky that it had opened a criminal investigation into this matter, and requested that Sikorsky and its two subsidiaries voluntarily produce documents. Sikorsky and its subsidiaries cooperated fully in the investigation. On February 4, 2016, we were informed that the Department of Justice is closing the criminal investigation with no action to the corporate entities or individuals.

On April 24, 2009, we filed a declaratory judgment action against the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority and its Capital Construction Company (collectively, the MTA) asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to find that the MTA is in material breach of our agreement based on the MTA’s failure to provide access to sites where work must be performed and the customer-furnished equipment necessary to complete the contract. The MTA filed an answer and counterclaim alleging that we breached the contract and subsequently terminated the contract for alleged default. The primary damages sought by the MTA are the cost to complete the contract and potential re-procurement costs. While we are unable to estimate the cost of another contractor to complete the contract and the costs of re-procurement, we note that our contract with the MTA had a total value of $323 million, of which $241 million was paid to us, and that the MTA is seeking damages of approximately $190 million. We dispute the MTA’s allegations and are defending against them. Additionally, following an investigation, our sureties on a performance bond related to this matter, who were represented by independent counsel, concluded that the MTA’s termination of the contract was improper. Finally, our declaratory judgment action was later amended to include claims for monetary damages against the MTA of approximately $95 million. This matter was taken under submission by the District Court in December 2014, after a five-week bench trial and the filing of post-trial pleadings by the parties. We expect a decision in 2016.

We have reached an agreement to settle with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the qui tam relators two lawsuits in which the DOJ filed complaints in partial intervention on August 28, 2003. The lawsuits, United States ex rel. Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, et al., and United States ex rel. John D. Tillson v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., et al., were filed by the relators in 1999 under the civil qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky and alleged that we committed violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant by not properly handling, storing and transporting hazardous waste and that we violated the False Claims Act by misleading Department of Energy officials and state regulators about the nature and extent of environmental noncompliance at the plant. The parties are finalizing the terms of the settlement agreement, which is considered a tentative agreement until it is formally approved by the United States Government. The amount of the settlement is not material. We believe that we have substantial defenses to all of the allegations and have agreed to settle the case to avoid the costs of further litigation of this matter which has been ongoing in excess of sixteen years. We will admit no liability or wrongdoing in resolving the matter. See Item 3 - Legal Proceedings of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 for additional information.

Environmental Matters

We are involved in environmental proceedings and potential proceedings relating to soil and groundwater contamination, disposal of hazardous waste and other environmental matters at several of our current or former facilities or at third-party sites where we have been designated as a potentially responsible party (PRP). A substantial portion of environmental costs will be included in our net sales and cost of sales in future periods pursuant to U.S. Government regulations. At the time a liability is recorded for future environmental costs, we record a receivable for estimated future recovery considered probable through the pricing of products and services to agencies of the U.S. Government, regardless of the contract form (e.g., cost-reimbursable, fixed-price). We continuously evaluate the recoverability of our environmental receivables by assessing, among other factors, U.S. Government regulations, our U.S. Government business base and contract mix and our history of receiving reimbursement of such costs. We include the portion of those environmental costs expected to be allocated to our non-U.S. Government contracts, or that is determined to not be recoverable under U.S. Government contracts, in our cost of sales at the time the liability is established.

At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the aggregate amount of liabilities recorded relative to environmental matters was $1.0 billion and $965 million, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent liabilities on our Balance Sheets. We have recorded receivables totaling $858 million and $836 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent assets on our Balance Sheets, for the estimated future recovery of these costs, as we consider the recovery probable based on the factors previously mentioned. We project costs and recovery of costs over approximately 20 years. Our acquisition of Sikorsky included certain environmental remediation liabilities that are among those recorded on our Balance Sheet, along with the related receivables for probable future recovery. These amounts did not materially impact our consolidated financial statements.

Environmental cleanup activities usually span several years, which makes estimating liabilities a matter of judgment because of uncertainties with respect to assessing the extent of the contamination as well as such factors as changing remediation technologies and continually evolving regulatory environmental standards. There are a number of former operating facilities that we are monitoring or investigating for potential future remediation. We perform quarterly reviews of the status of our environmental remediation sites and the related liabilities and receivables. Additionally, in our quarterly reviews we consider these and other factors in estimating the timing and amount of any future costs that may be required for remediation activities and record a liability when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the loss can be reasonably estimated. The amount of liability recorded is based on our estimate of the costs to be incurred for remediation at a particular site. We do not discount the recorded liabilities, as the amount and timing of future cash payments are not fixed or cannot be reliably determined. We reasonably cannot determine the extent of our financial exposure in all cases as, although a loss may be probable or reasonably possible, in some cases it is not possible at this time to estimate the loss or reasonably possible loss or range of loss.

We also are pursuing claims for recovery of costs incurred or contribution to site cleanup costs against other PRPs, including the U.S. Government, and are conducting remediation activities under various consent decrees and orders relating to soil, groundwater, sediment or surface water contamination at certain sites of former or current operations. Under an agreement related to our Burbank and Glendale, California, sites, the U.S. Government reimburses us an amount equal to approximately 50% of expenditures for certain remediation activities in its capacity as a PRP under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

On July 1, 2014, a regulation became effective in California setting the maximum level of the contaminant hexavalent chromium in drinking water at 10 parts per billion (ppb). In May 2014, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association filed a suit alleging the 10 ppb threshold is lower than is required to protect public health and thus imposes unjustified costs on the regulated community. We cannot predict the outcome of this suit or whether other challenges may be advanced by the regulated community or environmental groups which had sought a significantly higher and lower standard, respectively. If the new standard remains at 10 ppb, it will not have a material impact on our existing remediation costs in California.

In addition, California is reevaluating its existing drinking water standard with respect to a second contaminant, perchlorate, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is also considering whether to regulate perchlorate and hexavalent chromium in drinking water. In February 2016, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed suit in federal court in New York against the U.S. EPA to compel the U.S. EPA to set an enforceable drinking water standard for perchlorate. If substantially lower standards are adopted, in either California or at the federal level, for perchlorate, or if the U.S. EPA were to adopt a standard for hexavalent chromium lower than 10 ppb, we expect a material increase in our estimates for environmental liabilities and the related assets for the portion of the increased costs that are probable of future recovery in the pricing of our products and services for the U.S. Government. The amount that would be allocable to our non-U.S. Government contracts or that is determined to not be recoverable under U.S. Government contracts would be expensed, which may have a material effect on our earnings in any particular interim reporting period.

Operating Leases

We rent certain equipment and facilities under operating leases. Certain major plant facilities and equipment are furnished by the U.S. Government under short-term or cancelable arrangements. Our total rental expense under operating leases was $256 million, $258 million and $315 million for 2015, 2014 and 2013. Future minimum lease commitments at December 31, 2015 for long-term non-cancelable operating leases were $793 million ($205 million in 2016, $161 million in 2017, $128 million in 2018, $101 million in 2019, $64 million in 2020 and $134 million in later years).

Letters of Credit, Surety Bonds and Third-Party Guarantees

We have entered into standby letters of credit, surety bonds and third-party guarantees with financial institutions and other third parties primarily relating to advances received from customers and the guarantee of future performance on certain contracts. Letters of credit and surety bonds generally are available for draw down in the event we do not perform. In some cases, we may guarantee the contractual performance of third parties such as venture partners. We had total outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds and third-party guarantees aggregating $3.8 billion at December 31, 2015 and $2.4 billion at December 31, 2014.

At December 31, 2015 and 2014, third-party guarantees totaled $678 million and $774 million, of which approximately 79% and 85% related to guarantees of contractual performance of ventures to which we currently are or previously were a party. This amount represents our estimate of the maximum amount we would expect to incur upon the contractual non-performance of the venture partners. In addition, we generally have cross-indemnities in place that may enable us to recover amounts that may be paid on behalf of a venture partner. We believe our current and former venture partners will be able to perform their obligations, as they have done through December 31, 2015, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the guarantees. In determining our exposures, we evaluate the reputation, technical capabilities and credit quality of our current and former venture partners. There were no material amounts recorded in our financial statements related to third-party guarantees.

United Launch Alliance

In connection with our 50% ownership interest of ULA, we and The Boeing Company (Boeing) are required to provide ULA an additional capital contribution if ULA is unable to make required payments under its inventory supply agreement with Boeing. As of December 31, 2015, ULA’s total remaining obligation to Boeing under the inventory supply agreement was $120 million. The parties have agreed to defer the remaining payment obligation, as it is more than offset by other commitments to ULA. Accordingly, we do not expect to be required to make a capital contribution to ULA under this agreement.

In addition, both we and Boeing have cross-indemnified each other for guarantees by us and Boeing of the performance and financial obligations of ULA under certain launch service contracts. We believe ULA will be able to fully perform its obligations, as it has done through December 31, 2015, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the cross-indemnities or guarantees.

Our 50% ownership share of ULA’s net assets exceeded the book value of our investment by approximately $395 million (of which approximately $40 million remains at December 31, 2015 that will be amortized in 2016). This yearly amortization and our share of ULA’s net earnings are reported as equity in net earnings (losses) of equity investees in other income, net on our Statements of Earnings. Our investment in ULA totaled $748 million and $706 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014.