2.2.0.7 false LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES 114 - Disclosure - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES true false false false 1 USD false false iso4217_USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares 0 iso4217_USD_per_shares Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares 0 $ 5 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES 3 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 <div> NOTE 7 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES We are a party to or have property subject to litigation and other proceedings, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment. We believe the probability is remote that the outcome of these matters 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 quarter. We cannot predict the outcome of legal proceedings with certainty. These matters include the following items which have been previously reported. Legal Proceedings On June 24, 2009, the U.K. Ministry of Defence (MoD) sent us a letter alleging that we were in default on the “Soothsayer” contract under which we were providing electronic warfare equipment to the British military. The total value of the contract is UK £144 million, of which UK £39 million has been paid to date (representing approximately US $228 million and US $62 million, based on the exchange rate as of September 26, 2010). The MoD has demanded repayment of amounts paid under the contract, liquidated damages of UK £2 million (representing approximately US $3 million based on the exchange rate as of September 26, 2010), interest on those amounts, and has reserved the right to collect any excess future re-procurement costs. We dispute the MoD’s position. Following an unsuccessful mediation effort in October 2009, we served notice of arbitration on the MoD pursuant to the contract terms. We plan to seek damages for wrongful termination of the contract, including costs incurred but not paid. On April 24, 2009, we filed a declaratory judgment action against the N.Y. Metropolitan Transportation Authority and its Capital Construction Company (collectively, the MTA) asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of N.Y. 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 customer-furnished equipment necessary to complete the contract. The contract provides for the design and installation of an integrated electronic security system for the MTA and has a total value of $323 million, of which $241 million has been paid to date. The MTA filed an answer and counterclaim on May 26, 2009, alleging that we breached the contract, and subsequently terminated the contract for alleged default. The MTA is seeking monetary damages and other relief under the contract, including the cost to complete the contract and potential reprocurement costs. We dispute the MTA’s allegations and are defending against them. On July 2, 2009, the sureties under the performance bond that we posted for the contract filed their own declaratory judgment action seeking to be excused from performing for the MTA, noting that they were unable to conclude that we were in material default under the contract or, in the alternative, seeking indemnification from us. On July 7, 2009, we filed an amended complaint against the MTA adding claims for wrongful termination and for breach of contract damages, including costs incurred but not paid. The MTA has filed an amended counterclaim. Discovery is proceeding in the action. On November 30, 2007, the Department of Justice (DoJ) filed a complaint in partial intervention in a lawsuit filed under the qui tam provisions of the Civil False Claims Act in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, United States ex rel. Becker and Spencer v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al., alleging that we should have known that a subcontractor falsified and inflated invoices submitted to us that were passed through to the government. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them. On September 11, 2006, we and Lockheed Martin Investment Management Company (LMIMCo), our wholly-owned subsidiary, were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, seeking to represent a class of purportedly similarly situated participants and beneficiaries in our Salaried Savings Plan and the Hourly Savings Plan (the Plans). Plaintiffs allege that we or LMIMCo caused the Plans to pay expenses that were higher than reasonable by, among other actions, permitting service providers of the Plans to engage in revenue sharing, paying investment management fees for the company stock funds, and causing the company stock funds to hold cash for liquidity, thus reducing the return on those funds. The plaintiffs further allege that we or LMIMCo failed to disclose information appropriately relating to the fees associated with managing the Plans. In August 2008, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding allegations that we or LMIMCo breached fiduciary duties under ERISA by providing inadequate disclosures with respect to the Stable Value Fund offered under our 401(k) plans. In April 2009, the Judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims that were based on revenue sharing but let stand the claims about the company stock funds, the Stable Value Fund, and the overall fees paid by the plans. The Judge also certified a class for each plan for the claims concerning the Stable Value Fund and the overall fees paid by the plans. We are appealing that order. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them. On February 6, 2004, we submitted a certified contract claim to the United States requesting contractual indemnity for past and future remediation and litigation costs related to our former facility in Redlands, California. We submitted the claim consistent with a claim sponsorship agreement with The Boeing Company (Boeing), executed in 2001, in Boeing’s role as the prime contractor on the Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM) program. The contract for the SRAM program, which formed a significant portion of our work at the Redlands facility, had special contractual indemnities from the U.S. Air Force, as authorized by Public Law 85-804. On August 31, 2004, the United States denied the claim. Our appeal of that decision is pending with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. On August 28, 2003, the DoJ filed complaints in partial intervention in two lawsuits filed under the qui tam provisions of the Civil False Claims Act in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, 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. The DoJ alleges that we committed violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 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. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them. As described in the “Environmental Matters” discussion below, we are subject to federal and state requirements for protection of the environment, including those for discharge of hazardous materials and remediation of contaminated sites. As a result, we are a party to or have property subject to various other lawsuits or proceedings involving environmental matters and remediation obligations. We have been in litigation with certain residents of Redlands, California since 1997 before the California Superior Court for San Bernardino County regarding allegations of personal injury, property damage, and other tort claims on behalf of individuals arising from our alleged contribution to regional groundwater contamination. On July 11, 2006, the California Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. On September 23, 2008, the trial court dismissed the remaining first tier plaintiffs, ending the first round of individual trials; the California Court of Appeal affirmed this dismissal, and the California Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for review in January 2010. The parties are now working with the trial court to establish the procedures for the litigation of the next round of individual plaintiffs, and pre-trial proceedings are now underway.   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. Environmental cleanup activities usually span many years, which make estimating liabilities a matter of judgment because of such factors as changing remediation technologies, assessments of the extent of contamination, and continually evolving regulatory environmental standards. We consider these and other factors in estimates of the timing and amount of any future costs that may be required for remediation actions. We perform quarterly reviews of environmental remediation sites and record liabilities and related assets in the period it becomes probable that a liability has been incurred and the amounts can be reasonably estimated. The amount of the liability recorded is based on a range of estimates for a particular environmental site, and represents the amount within the range that we determine to be our best estimate of the cost of remediation. If no amount within the range is better than another, we record an amount at the low end of the range. We do not discount the recorded liabilities, as the amount and timing of future cash payments are not fixed or cannot be reliably determined. At September 26, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the aggregate amount of liabilities recorded relative to environmental matters was $959 million and $877 million. Of those amounts, $830 million and $748 million were recorded in other liabilities on our Balance Sheets, with the remainder recorded in other current liabilities. A majority of environmental costs is eligible for future recovery in the pricing of our products and services in U.S. Government contracts. We have recorded assets totaling $825 million and $740 million at September 26, 2010 and December 31, 2009 for the estimated future recovery of these costs, as we consider the recovery probable based on government contracting regulations and our history of receiving reimbursement for such costs. Of those amounts, $714 million and $630 million were recorded in other assets on our Balance Sheets, with the remainder recorded in other current assets. We cannot reasonably determine the extent of our financial exposure in all cases at this time. There are a number of former operating facilities that we are monitoring or investigating for potential future remediation. In some cases, although a loss may be probable, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the amount of any obligation for remediation activities because of uncertainties with respect to assessing the extent of the contamination or the applicable regulatory standard. We also are pursuing claims for contribution to site cleanup costs against other potentially responsible parties (PRPs), including the U.S. Government. We are conducting remediation activities, including under various consent decrees and orders relating to soil or groundwater 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). Letters of Credit and Other Arrangements We have entered into standby letter of credit agreements, surety bonds, and other arrangements with financial institutions and other third parties primarily relating to advances received from customers and/or the guarantee of future performance on certain contracts. We have total outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds, and other arrangements aggregating $3.7 billion and $3.6 billion at September 26, 2010 and December 31, 2009. Letters of credit and surety bonds are generally available for draw down in the event we do not perform.   Investment in United Launch Alliance In connection with our ownership of United Launch Alliance, L.L.C. (ULA), we and Boeing each committed to provide up to $200 million in financial support to ULA, as required, until at least December 1, 2011. To satisfy this commitment, we had a revolving credit agreement with ULA in place through September 26, 2010. No amounts had been drawn on the credit agreement through that date. On September 27, 2010, ULA entered into its own $400 million revolving credit agreement with a group of banks which expires on October 1, 2013. At the same time, the revolving credit agreement we and Boeing had in place was terminated. The new revolving credit agreement satisfies Boeing’s and our commitment to provide financial support of up to $200 million each to ULA so long as the total amount of the new agreement remains at $400 million or above until at least December 1, 2011. We and Boeing have received distributions totaling $197 million each which are subject to agreements between us, Boeing, and ULA, whereby, if ULA does not have sufficient cash resources and/or credit capacity to make payments under the inventory supply agreement it has with Boeing, both we and Boeing would provide to ULA, in the form of an additional capital contribution, the level of funding required for ULA to make those payments. Any such capital contributions would not exceed the amount of the distributions subject to the agreements. We currently believe that ULA will have sufficient operating cash flows and credit capacity to meet its obligations such that we would not be required to make a contribution under these agreements. In addition, both we and Boeing have cross-indemnified ULA related to certain financial support arrangements (e.g., letters of credit, surety bonds, or foreign exchange contracts provided by either party) and 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 September 26, 2010, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the cross-indemnities. </div> NOTE 7 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES We are a party to or have property subject to litigation and other proceedings, including matters arising 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 1 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true