Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Except as otherwise noted, while we are unable to predict the final outcome, based on information currently available, we do not believe that resolution of any of the following matters will have a material adverse effect upon our competitive position, results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Environmental. Our operations are subject to environmental regulation by federal, state and local authorities in the United States and regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over our foreign operations. We have accrued for the costs of environmental remediation activities, including but not limited to investigatory, remediation, operating and maintenance costs and performance guarantees, and periodically reassess these amounts. We do not expect any additional liability to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, we had $834 million and $835 million, respectively, reserved for environmental remediation. Additional information pertaining to environmental matters is included in “Note 1: Basis of Presentation and Summary of Accounting Principles.”

Commercial Aerospace Financing and Other Commitments. We had commercial aerospace financing commitments and other contractual commitments of approximately $15.6 billion and $13.4 billion as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, on a gross basis before reduction for our collaboration partners’ share. Aircraft financing commitments, in the

form of debt or lease financing, are provided to certain commercial aerospace customers. The extent to which the financing commitments will be utilized is not currently known, since customers may be able to obtain more favorable terms from other financing sources. We may also arrange for third-party investors to assume a portion of these commitments. The majority of financing commitments are collateralized arrangements. We may also lease aircraft and subsequently sublease the aircraft to customers under long-term non-cancelable operating leases, or pay deposits on behalf of our customers to secure production slots with the airframers (pre-delivery payments). Our financing commitments with customers are contingent upon maintenance of certain levels of financial condition by the customers.

Associated risks on these commitments are mitigated due to the fact that interest rates are variable during the commitment term and are set at the date of funding based on current market conditions, the fair value of the underlying collateral and the credit worthiness of the customers. As a result, the fair value of these financing commitments is expected to equal the amounts funded.

We also have other contractual commitments, including commitments to make payments to secure certain contractual rights to provide product on new aircraft platforms. The estimated amount and timing of these payments, which are generally based on future sales or engine flight hours, are reflected in “Other commercial aerospace commitments” in the table below. Payments made on these contractual commitments are included within intangible assets as exclusivity assets and are amortized over the term of underlying economic benefit. We have entered into certain collaboration arrangements, which may include participation by our collaboration partners in these commitments. In addition, in connection with our 2012 agreement to acquire Rolls-Royce’s ownership and collaboration interests in IAE, additional payments are due to Rolls-Royce contingent upon each hour flown through June 2027 by the V2500-powered aircraft in service as of the acquisition date. These flight hour payments, which are considered in “Other commercial aerospace commitments” below, will be capitalized as collaboration intangible assets as payments are made.

The following is the expected maturity of our commercial aerospace industry commitments as of December 31, 2021:

(dollars in millions)	Committed		2022		2023		2024		2025		2026		Thereafter
Commercial aerospace financing commitments	$	4,552	$	1,222	$	1,051	$	1,380	$	344	$	443	$	112
Other commercial aerospace commitments	11,014		735		1,053		765		739		597		7,125
Collaboration partners’ share	(5,907)		(665)		(659)		(814)		(423)		(444)		(2,902)
Total commercial aerospace commitments	$	9,659	$	1,292	$	1,445	$	1,331	$	660	$	596	$	4,335

Other Financing Arrangements. We have entered into standby letters of credit and surety bonds with financial institutions to meet various bid, performance, warranty, retention and advance payment obligations for us or our affiliates. We enter into these agreements to assist certain affiliates in obtaining financing on more favorable terms, making bids on contracts and performing their contractual obligations. The stated values of these letters of credit agreements and surety bonds totaled $3.9 billion as of December 31, 2021.

Offset Obligations. We have entered into industrial cooperation agreements, sometimes in the form of either offset agreements or ICIP agreements, as a condition to obtaining orders for our products and services from certain customers in foreign countries. At December 31, 2021, the aggregate amount of our offset agreements, both agreed to and anticipated to be agreed to, had an outstanding notional value of approximately $10.3 billion. These agreements are designed to return economic value to the foreign country by requiring us to engage in activities supporting local defense or commercial industries, promoting a balance of trade, developing in-country technology capabilities or addressing other local development priorities. Offset agreements 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, and the purchase by third parties (e.g., our vendors) of supplies from in-country vendors. These agreements may also be satisfied through our use of cash for activities such as subcontracting with local partners, purchasing supplies from in-country vendors, providing financial support for in-country projects and making investments in local ventures. Such activities may also vary by country depending upon requirements as dictated by their governments. We typically do not commit to offset agreements until orders for our products or services are definitive. The amounts ultimately applied against our offset agreements are based on negotiations with the customers and typically require cash outlays that represent only a fraction of the notional value in the offset agreements. Offset programs usually extend over several or more years and may provide for penalties in the event we fail to perform in accordance with offset requirements. Historically, we have not been required to pay any penalties of significance.

Government Oversight. In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries and our properties are subject to regulatory and governmental examinations, information gathering requests, inquiries, investigations and threatened legal actions and proceedings. For example, we are now, and believe that, in light of the current U.S. government contracting environment,

we will continue to be the subject of one or more U.S. government investigations. Our contracts with the U.S. government are also subject to audits. Agencies that oversee contract performance include: the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), the Inspectors General of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and other departments and agencies, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and Congressional Committees. Other areas of our business operations may also be subject to audit and investigation by these and other agencies. From time to time, agencies investigate or conduct audits to determine whether our operations are being conducted in accordance with applicable requirements. Such investigations and audits may be initiated due to a number of reasons, including as a result of a whistleblower complaint. Such investigations and audits could result in administrative, civil or criminal liabilities, including repayments, fines, treble or other damages, forfeitures, restitution, or penalties being imposed upon us, the suspension of government export licenses or the suspension or debarment from future U.S. government contracting. U.S. government investigations often take years to complete. The U.S. government also reserves the right to debar a contractor from receiving new government contracts for fraudulent, criminal or other seriously improper conduct. The U.S. government could void any contracts found to be tainted by fraud. Like many defense contractors, we have received audit reports recommending the reduction of certain contract prices because, for example, cost or pricing data or cost accounting practices used to price and negotiate those contracts may not have conformed to government regulations. Some of these audit reports recommend that certain payments be repaid, delayed, or withheld, and may involve substantial amounts. We have made voluntary refunds in those cases we believe appropriate, have settled some allegations and, in some cases, continue to negotiate and/or litigate. The Company may be, and in some cases has been, required to make payments into escrow of disputed liabilities while the related litigation is pending. If the litigation is resolved in the Company’s favor, any such payments will be returned to the Company with interest. Our final allowable incurred costs for each year are also subject to audit and have, from time to time, resulted in disputes between us and the U.S. government, with litigation resulting at the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) or the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) or their related courts of appeals. In addition, the DOJ has, from time to time, convened grand juries to investigate possible irregularities by us. We also provide products and services to customers outside of the U.S., and those sales are subject to local government laws, regulations and procurement policies and practices. Our compliance with such local government regulations or any applicable U.S. government regulations (e.g., the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)) may also be investigated or audited. In addition, we accrue for liabilities associated with those matters that are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The most likely liability amount to be incurred is accrued based upon a range of estimates. Where no amount within a range of estimates is more likely, then we accrue the minimum amount. Other than as specifically disclosed in this Form 10-K, we do not expect these audits, investigations or disputes to have a material effect on our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity, either individually or in the aggregate.

Legal Proceedings. The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to various contract pricing disputes, government investigations and litigation matters across jurisdictions, updates to certain of which are set forth below.

Cost Accounting Standards Claims

As previously disclosed, in April 2019, a Divisional Administrative Contracting Officer (DACO) of the United States DCMA asserted a claim against Pratt & Whitney to recover alleged overpayments of approximately $1.73 billion plus interest ($730 million at December 31, 2021). The claim is based on Pratt & Whitney’s alleged noncompliance with Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) from January 1, 2007 to March 31, 2019, due to its method of allocating independent research and development costs to government contracts. Pratt & Whitney believes that the claim is without merit and filed an appeal to the ASBCA on June 7, 2019.

As previously disclosed, in December 2013, a DCMA DACO asserted a claim against Pratt & Whitney to recover alleged overpayments of approximately $177 million plus interest ($118 million at December 31, 2021). The claim is based on Pratt & Whitney’s alleged noncompliance with CAS from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2012, due to its method of determining the cost of collaborator parts used in the calculation of material overhead costs for government contracts. In 2014, Pratt & Whitney filed an appeal to the ASBCA. An evidentiary hearing was held and completed in June 2019. On November 22, 2021, the ASBCA issued its written decision sustaining in part and denying in part Pratt & Whitney’s appeal. The ASBCA rejected the DCMA’s asserted measure of the cost of collaborator parts, and ruled substantially in Pratt & Whitney’s favor on other liability issues. The ASBCA remanded the appeal to the parties for resolution of damages issues, which could require further proceedings at the ASBCA. On December 23, 2021, the DCMA filed a motion with the ASBCA seeking partial reconsideration of the November 22, 2021 decision. Although the ASBCA decision may also be subject to further appellate review, we believe that the ASBCA’s rejection of the DCMA’s asserted measure of the cost of collaborator parts is well supported in fact and law and likely will be sustained. In December 2018, a DCMA DACO issued a second claim against Pratt & Whitney that similarly alleges that its method of determining the cost of collaborator parts does not comply with the CAS for calendar years 2013 through 2017. This second claim, which asserts the same measure of the cost of collaborator parts rejected by the ASBCA’s recent decision, demands payment of $269 million plus interest ($80 million at December 31, 2021). Pratt & Whitney appealed

this second claim to the ASBCA in January 2019. Although subject to further litigation at the ASBCA and potentially further appellate proceedings, we believe that the November 22, 2021 decision in the first claim will apply with equal legal effect to the second claim. Accordingly, we believe that the amounts demanded by the DCMA as set forth in the two claims are without legal basis and that any damages owed to the U.S. government for the two claims will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Thales-Raytheon Systems Matter

As previously disclosed, in 2019, Raytheon Company received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking information in connection with an investigation into whether there were improper payments made by Thales-Raytheon Systems (TRS) or anyone acting on their behalf in connection with TRS or Raytheon Company contracts in certain Middle East countries since 2014. In the first quarter of 2020, the DOJ advised Raytheon Company it had opened a parallel criminal investigation. In the third quarter of 2020, Raytheon Company received an additional subpoena from the SEC, seeking information and documents as part of its ongoing investigation. The Company maintains a rigorous anti-corruption compliance program, is cooperating fully with the SEC’s and DOJ’s inquiry, and is examining whether there has been any conduct that is in violation of Raytheon Company policy. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the SEC’s or DOJ’s inquiry. Based on the information available to date, however, we do not believe the results of this inquiry will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

DOJ Investigation, Contract Pricing Disputes and Related Civil Litigation

As previously disclosed, on October 8, 2020, the Company received a criminal subpoena from the DOJ seeking information and documents in connection with an investigation relating to financial accounting, internal controls over financial reporting, and cost reporting regarding Raytheon Company’s Missiles & Defense (RMD) business since 2009. The investigation involves multi-year contracts subject to governmental regulation, including potential civil defective pricing claims for three RMD contracts entered into between 2011 and 2013. As part of the same investigation, on March 24, 2021, the Company received a second criminal subpoena from the DOJ seeking documents relating to a different RMD contract entered into in 2017. We are cooperating fully with, and will continue to review the issues raised by, the DOJ’s ongoing investigation. We have made substantial progress in our internal review of the issues raised by the DOJ investigation. Although we continue to believe we have defenses to the potential claims, the Company has determined that there is a probable risk of liability for damages, interest and potential penalties and has accrued approximately $290 million for this matter. We are currently unable to estimate an incremental loss, if any, which may result following the completion of our internal review and resolution of the DOJ investigation. Based on the information available to date, we do not believe the results of the investigation or of any potential civil litigation will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Four shareholder lawsuits were filed against the Company after the DOJ investigation was first disclosed. A putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the Company and certain of its executives alleging that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misstatements in regulatory filings regarding internal controls over financial reporting in RMD. Three shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the former Raytheon Company Board of Directors, the Company and certain of its executives, each alleging that defendants violated federal securities laws and breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in improper accounting practices, failing to implement sufficient internal financial and compliance controls, and making a series of false and misleading statements in regulatory filings. We believe that each of these lawsuits lacks merit.

Darnis, et al.

As previously disclosed, on August 12, 2020, several former employees of UTC or its subsidiaries filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company, Otis, Carrier, the former members of the UTC Board of Directors, and the members of the Carrier and Otis Boards of Directors (Geraud Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.). The complaint challenged the method by which UTC equity awards were converted to Company, Otis, and Carrier equity awards following the separation of UTC into three independent, publicly-traded companies on April 3, 2020. The complaint also claimed that the defendants are liable for breach of certain equity compensation plans and also asserted claims under certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). On September 13, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which supersedes the initial complaint and continues to assert claims for breach of the equity compensation plans against the Company, Otis and Carrier, but no longer asserts ERISA claims. Further, no claim is made in the amended complaint against any current or former director of any of the three companies. Plaintiffs seek money damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief. We continue to believe that the Company has meritorious defenses to these claims. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome; however, based on the

information available to date, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

DOJ Grand Jury Investigation and Related Civil Litigation

The Company received a grand jury subpoena in late 2019, as part of a DOJ criminal investigation into purported agreements not to solicit or hire employees in violation of the federal antitrust laws. While the investigation has focused on alleged hiring restrictions between and among Pratt & Whitney and certain of its suppliers of outsourced engineering services, the subpoena also included requests regarding Collins Aerospace. Since receipt of the subpoena, the Company has been cooperating with the DOJ investigation. On December 15, 2021, a criminal indictment was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, against a former Pratt & Whitney employee and other employees of certain outsourced engineering suppliers charging each of them with one count of violating the federal antitrust laws. No current or former Collins Aerospace employees were named in the indictment. We were recently advised that the Company is a target of the DOJ investigation, and we continue to cooperate with the investigation. No criminal charge has been filed against the Company or its affiliates.

After the criminal charges against the individuals were filed, numerous civil class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed against Pratt & Whitney and other corporate and individual defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The allegations in each of the civil lawsuits track the factual assertions in the criminal indictment and generally allege that Pratt & Whitney and the other defendants agreed to restrict the hiring and recruiting of certain engineers and skilled laborers in a manner that violated federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs in each of the civil lawsuits seek to represent different purported classes of engineers and skilled laborers employed by Pratt & Whitney and other supplier-defendants since 2011. Collins Aerospace was also named as a defendant in some of the lawsuits. Plaintiffs in each of the lawsuits seek treble damages in an undetermined amount, plus attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. We expect that all the lawsuits ultimately will be consolidated into a single joint complaint. We believe that each of these lawsuits lacks merit. Based on the information available to date, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Where appropriate, we have recorded loss contingency accruals for the above-referenced matters, and the amounts individually, or in the aggregate, are not material.

Other. As described in “Note 18: Guarantees,” we extend performance and operating cost guarantees beyond our normal warranty and service policies for extended periods on some of our products. We have accrued our estimate of the liability that may result under these guarantees and for service costs that are probable and can be reasonably estimated.

We also have other commitments and contingent liabilities related to legal proceedings, self-insurance programs and matters arising out of the normal course of business. We accrue contingencies based upon a range of possible outcomes. If no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other, then we accrue the minimum amount.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are also routinely defendants in, parties to or otherwise subject to many pending and threatened legal actions, claims, disputes and proceedings. These matters are often based on alleged violations of contract, product liability, warranty, regulatory, environmental, health and safety, employment, intellectual property, tax and other laws. In some instances, claims for substantial monetary damages are asserted against the Company and its subsidiaries and could result in fines, penalties, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary relief. We do not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect upon our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.