Note 17: Contingent Liabilities

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements [Abstract]

Note 17: Contingent Liabilities

Note 17: Contingent Liabilities

Leases. We occupy space and use certain equipment under lease arrangements. Rental commitments of $1,883 million at December 31, 2011 under long-term non-cancelable operating leases are payable as follows: $515million in 2012, $404million in 2013, $292million in 2014, $184million in 2015, $115million in 2016and $373million thereafter. Rent expense was $453million in 2011, $445million in 2010and $463million in 2009.

Additional information pertaining to commercial aerospace rental commitments is included in Note 4to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

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. As described in Note 1to the Consolidated Financial Statements, we have accrued for the costs of environmental remediation activities and periodically reassess these amounts. We believe that the likelihood of incurring losses materially in excess of amounts accrued is remote. At December 31, 2011, we had $617million reserved for environmental remediation. Additional information pertaining to environmental matters is included in Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Government. 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. If we or one of our business units were charged with wrongdoing as a result of any of these investigations or other government investigations (including violations of certain environmental or export laws) the U.S. government could suspend us from bidding on or receiving awards of new U.S. government contracts pending the completion of legal proceedings. If convicted or found liable, the U.S. government could fine and debar us from new U.S. government contracting for a period generally not to exceed three years. The U.S. government could void any contracts found to be tainted by fraud.

Our contracts with the U.S. government are also subject to audits. Like many defense contractors, we have received audit reports, which recommend that certain contract prices should be reduced to comply with various government regulations. Some of these audit reports involved substantial amounts. We have made voluntary refunds in those cases we believe appropriate, have settled some allegations and continue to litigate certain cases. In addition, we accrue for liabilities associated with those matters that are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The most likely settlement 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 accrued the minimum amount.

As previously disclosed, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued us in 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, claiming that Pratt & Whitney violated the civil False Claims Act and common law. This lawsuit relates to the “Fighter Engine Competition” between Pratt & Whitney's F100 engine and General Electric's F110 engine. The DOJ alleges that the government overpaid for F100 engines under contracts awarded by the U.S. Air Force in fiscal years 1985 through 1990 because Pratt & Whitney inflated its estimated costs for some purchased parts and withheld data that would have revealed the overstatements. At trial of this matter, completed in December 2004, the government claimed Pratt & Whitney's liability to be $624 million.On August 1, 2008, the trial court judge held that the Air Force had not suffered any actual damages because Pratt & Whitney had made significant price concessions. However, the trial court judge found that Pratt & Whitney violated the False Claims Act due to inaccurate statements contained in the 1983 offer. In the absence of actual damages, the trial court judge awarded the DOJ the maximum civil penalty of $7.09 million, or $10,000 for each of the 709 invoices Pratt & Whitney submitted in 1989 and later under the contracts. In September 2008, both the DOJ and UTC appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2010, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Pratt & Whitney's liability under the False Claims Act and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings on the question of damages. Should the government ultimately prevail, the outcome of this matter could result in a material effect on our results of operations in the period in which a liability would be recognized or cash flows for the period in which damages would be paid.

As previously disclosed, in December 2008, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) issued a contract claim against Sikorsky to recover overpayments the DOD alleges it has incurred since January 2003 in connection with cost accounting changes approved by the DOD and implemented by Sikorsky in 1999 and 2006. These changes relate to the calculation of material overhead rates in government contracts. The DOD claims that Sikorsky's liability is approximately $92 million (including interest through December 2011). We believe this claim is without merit and Sikorsky filed an appeal in December 2009 with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which is pending. We do not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

A significant portion of our activities are subject to export control regulation by the U.S. Department of State (State Department) under the U.S. Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). From time to time, we identify, investigate, remediate and voluntarily disclose to the State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance (DTCC) potential violations of the ITAR. DTCC administers the State Department's authority under the ITAR to impose civil penalties and other administrative sanctions for violations, including debarment from engaging in the export of defense articles or defense services. Most of our voluntary disclosures are resolved without the imposition of penalties or other sanctions. However, in November 2011, DTCC informed us that it considers certain of our voluntary disclosures filed since 2005 to reflect deficiencies warranting penalties and sanctions. We are currently in discussions with DTCC to reach a consent agreement, which we anticipate will provide for a payment by the Company and commitments regarding additional remedial compliance efforts.

The voluntary disclosures that we anticipate will be addressed in the consent agreement currently under discussion include 2006 and 2007 disclosures regarding the export by Hamilton Sundstrand to P&WC of certain modifications to dual-use electronic engine control software, and the re-export by P&WC of those software modifications and subsequent P&WC-developed patches to China during the period 2002-2004 for use in the development of the Z-10 Chinese military helicopter. The DOJ has also separately conducted a criminal investigation of the matters addressed in these disclosures, as well as the accuracy and adequacy of the disclosures. We have been cooperating with the DOJ's investigation. Since November 2011, we have been in discussions with the DOJ to resolve this matter.

We continue to evaluate the range of possible outcomes of these separate but related export compliance matters, and have recognized a potential liability at December 31, 2011 of $45 million. We are currently unable to predict the precise timing or outcome of the discussions. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

Other.Except as otherwise noted, we do not believe that resolution of any of the above matters will have a material adverse effect upon our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

As described in Note 15to the Consolidated Financial Statements, 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 have accrued for environmental investigatory, remediation, operating and maintenance costs, performance guarantees and other litigation and claims based on our estimate of the probable outcome of these matters. While it is possible that the outcome of these matters may differ from the recorded liability, we believe that resolution of these matters will not have a material impact on our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

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.

We are also subject to a number of routine lawsuits, investigations and claims (some of which involve substantial amounts) arising out of the ordinary course of our business. We do not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect upon our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.