Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 25, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	17. Commitments and Contingencies *Guarantees* In connection with the spin-off of Engility Holdings, Inc. (Engility) in 2012, L-3 entered into a Distribution Agreement and several other agreements that govern certain aspects of L-3’s relationship with Engility, including employee matters, tax matters, transition services, and the future supplier/customer relationship between L-3 and Engility. These agreements generally provide cross-indemnities that, except as otherwise provided, are principally designed to place the financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of each entity with that respective entity. Engility has joint and several liability with L-3 to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the consolidated U.S. Federal income taxes of L-3’s consolidated group for taxable periods in which Engility was a part of that group. However, the Tax Matters Agreement specifies the portion of this tax liability for which L-3 and Engility will each bear responsibility, and L-3 and Engility have agreed to indemnify each other against any amounts for which the other is not responsible. The Tax Matters Agreement also allocates responsibility between L-3 and Engility for other taxes, including special rules for allocating tax liabilities in the event that the spin-off is determined not to be tax-free. Though valid as between the parties, the Tax Matters Agreement is not binding on the IRS. The Company had two existing real estate lease agreements, which included residual guarantee amounts, were due to expire on August 31, 2015 and were accounted for as operating leases. Before the lease expiration date, the Company exercised an option to renew the leases for another five years, with similar lease terms, except the aggregate residual guarantee amount increased by $17 million to $40 million, reflecting the appreciation of the estimated fair value of the leased properties. The Company received $17 million in cash from the lessor at the inception of the new leases, which is included in cash flows from financing activities in the unaudited condensed consolidated statement of cash flows for the year-to-date period ended September 25, 2015, and recorded a deferred gain in other liabilities in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 25, 2015. *Procurement Regulations* A substantial majority of the Company’s revenues are generated from providing products and services under legally binding agreements or contracts with U.S. Government and foreign government customers. U.S. Government contracts are subject to extensive legal and regulatory requirements, and, from time to time, agencies of the U.S. Government investigate whether such contracts were and are being conducted in accordance with these requirements. The Company is currently cooperating with the U.S. Government on several investigations from which civil, criminal or administrative proceedings have or could result and give rise to fines, penalties, compensatory and treble damages, restitution and/or forfeitures. In that regard, as of September 25, 2015, the Company has recognized an aggregate liability of $26 million in anticipation of a settlement related to a product specification matter regarding a holographic weapon sight product in the Warrior Systems sector of the Electronic Systems segment. The Company has other ongoing government investigations, including investigations into the pricing of certain contracts entered into by the Communication Systems segment. The Company does not currently anticipate that any of these investigations will have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, under U.S. Government regulations, an indictment of the Company by a federal grand jury, or an administrative finding against the Company as to its present responsibility to be a U.S. Government contractor or subcontractor, could result in the Company being suspended for a period of time from eligibility for awards of new government contracts or task orders or in a loss of export privileges. A conviction, or an administrative finding against the Company that satisfies the requisite level of seriousness, could result in debarment from contracting with the federal government for a specified term. In addition, all of the Company’s U.S. Government contracts: (1) are subject to audit and various pricing and cost controls, (2) include standard provisions for termination for the convenience of the U.S. Government or for default, and (3) are subject to cancellation if funds for contracts become unavailable. Foreign government contracts generally include comparable provisions relating to terminations for convenience or default, as well as other procurement clauses relevant to the foreign government. *Litigation Matters* The Company is also subject to litigation, proceedings, claims or assessments and various contingent liabilities incidental to its businesses, including those specified below. Furthermore, in connection with certain business acquisitions, the Company has assumed some or all claims against, and liabilities of, such acquired businesses, including both asserted and unasserted claims and liabilities. In accordance with the accounting standard for contingencies, the Company records a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. Generally, the loss is recorded at the amount the Company expects to resolve the liability. The estimated amounts of liabilities recorded for pending and threatened litigation are disclosed in Note 8. Amounts recoverable from insurance contracts or third parties are recorded as assets when deemed probable. At September 25, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company recorded approximately $11 million of receivables for recoveries from insurance contracts or third parties in connection with the Bashkirian Airways matter discussed below. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for its litigation matters. The Company reviews these provisions quarterly and adjusts these provisions to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. While it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome may occur in one or more of the following matters, unless otherwise stated below, the Company believes that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of these matters. With respect to the litigation matters below for which it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome may occur, an estimate of loss or range of loss is disclosed when such amount or amounts can be reasonably estimated. Although the Company believes that it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters and investigations pending against it, the results of litigation can be difficult to predict, particularly those involving jury trials. Accordingly, the Company’s current judgment as to the likelihood of loss (or our current estimate as to the potential range of loss, if any) with respect to any particular litigation matter may turn out to be wrong. Therefore, it is possible that the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company could be materially adversely affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these or other contingencies. Class Action. In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended and restated on March 13, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. The Company believes the action lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. On April 24, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended and restated complaint. The motion has been fully briefed. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their early stages. Government Inquiries. On July 30, 2014, the Company voluntarily contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to report information concerning its internal review related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment. The Company has received requests for interviews of current and former employees, and subpoenas for documents and other materials from the SEC and the Department of Justice concerning these self-reported matters. The Company is fully cooperating with both agencies. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with these inquiries based on the nature of the inquiries to date. Bashkirian Airways. On July 1, 2004, lawsuits were filed on behalf of the estates of 31 Russian children in the state courts of Washington, Arizona, California, Florida, New York and New Jersey against Honeywell, Honeywell TCAS, Thales USA, Thales France, the Company and Aviation Communications & Surveillance Systems (ACSS), which is a joint venture of L-3 and Thales. The suits relate to the crash over southern Germany of a Bashkirian Airways Tupelov TU 154M aircraft and a DHL Boeing 757 cargo aircraft. On-board the Tupelov aircraft were 9 crew members and 60 passengers, including 45 children. The Boeing aircraft carried a crew of two. Both aircraft were equipped with Honeywell/ACSS Model 2000, Change 7 Traffic Collision and Avoidance Systems (TCAS). Sensing the other aircraft, the on-board DHL TCAS instructed the DHL pilot to descend, and the Tupelov on-board TCAS instructed the Tupelov pilot to climb. However, the Swiss air traffic controller ordered the Tupelov pilot to descend. The Tupelov pilot disregarded the on-board TCAS and put the Tupelov aircraft into a descent striking the DHL aircraft in midair at approximately 35,000 feet. All crew and passengers of both planes were lost. Investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board after the crash revealed that both TCAS units were performing as designed. The suits allege negligence and strict product liability based upon the design of the units and the training provided to resolve conflicting commands. The Company’s insurers accepted defense of these matters and retained counsel. The matters were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which then dismissed the actions on the basis of forum non conveniens. Plaintiffs representing 30 of the estates re-filed their complaint against ACSS on April 23, 2007 with the Barcelona Court’s Registry in Spain. On March 9, 2010, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and entered judgment against ACSS in the amount of approximately $6.7 million, all of which represented compensatory damages. Both ACSS and the plaintiffs appealed the judgment. In May 2012, the appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and entered judgment against ACSS in the amount of $48 million. ACSS filed an appeal of the judgment with the Supreme Court of Spain (the Supreme Court) on September 28, 2012. During the Supreme Court’s consideration of the appeal, 18 of 30 plaintiffs released their claims against ACSS in consideration for payments made by the Company’s insurance carriers. On February 10, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that awarded the remaining 12 plaintiffs approximately $11 million in the aggregate (including interest), plus certain legal expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in connection with the appeal to the Supreme Court. The Company’s insurers have paid the $11 million award amount into an escrow account held by the Company’s legal representatives for payment to the plaintiffs if and when the award becomes due, and have confirmed that they will pay the plaintiffs’ legal expenses on behalf of the Company once they are certified and become due. On May 20, 2015, an appeal was filed on behalf of ACSS to annul the Supreme Court decision on constitutional grounds. In October 2015, eight of the remaining 12 plaintiffs released their claims against ACSS in consideration for approximately $7.0 million in aggregate payments made from the escrow account (representing a discount of approximately $0.1 million from the portion of the $11 million award attributable to these plaintiffs). Settlement discussions with the remaining four plaintiffs are ongoing. HVC Alkmaar. On July 23, 2014, a notice of claim was received by our former JovyAtlas business unit. The notice relates to losses resulting from a fire that occurred at an HVC Alkmaar bio-energy plant on July 21, 2013. The notice states that the fire resulted from the failure of an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) to provide sufficient power to act as a back-up energy supply, alleges that JovyAtlas was the manufacturer and service provider for the UPS and claims €11 million in estimated property damages and €35 million in estimated business interruption damages. The Company has tendered the notice of claim to its insurance carriers, who have commenced their own investigation. Qui Tam Action. On March 14, 2012, the Company was served with a qui tam lawsuit filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in which the U.S. Government has declined to intervene. The complaint alleges violations of the False Claims Act and seeks unquantified treble damages, penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and pre-judgment interest. Plaintiff alleges that between 2004 and 2012, the Company overbilled the U.S. Government for labor hours under contracts for helicopter maintenance and repair services in Southwest Asia. On July 8, 2015, the court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment. A jury trial is scheduled for the first quarter of 2016. The Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter because: (1) significant factual issues remain in dispute, (2) the results of litigation can be difficult to predict, particularly those involving jury trials and (3) the plaintiff has not yet indicated the specific amount of damages that will be sought at trial. The Company believes the action lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.

17. Commitments and Contingencies

Guarantees

In connection with the spin-off of Engility Holdings, Inc. (Engility) in 2012, L-3 entered into a Distribution Agreement and several other agreements that govern certain aspects of L-3’s relationship with Engility, including employee matters, tax matters, transition services, and the future supplier/customer relationship between L-3 and Engility. These agreements generally provide cross-indemnities that, except as otherwise provided, are principally designed to place the financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of each entity with that respective entity. Engility has joint and several liability with L-3 to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the consolidated U.S. Federal income taxes of L-3’s consolidated group for taxable periods in which Engility was a part of that group. However, the Tax Matters Agreement specifies the portion of this tax liability for which L-3 and Engility will each bear responsibility, and L-3 and Engility have agreed to indemnify each other against any amounts for which the other is not responsible. The Tax Matters Agreement also allocates responsibility between L-3 and Engility for other taxes, including special rules for allocating tax liabilities in the event that the spin-off is determined not to be tax-free. Though valid as between the parties, the Tax Matters Agreement is not binding on the IRS.

The Company had two existing real estate lease agreements, which included residual guarantee amounts, were due to expire on August 31, 2015 and were accounted for as operating leases. Before the lease expiration date, the Company exercised an option to renew the leases for another five years, with similar lease terms, except the aggregate residual guarantee amount increased by $17 million to $40 million, reflecting the appreciation of the estimated fair value of the leased properties. The Company received $17 million in cash from the lessor at the inception of the new leases, which is included in cash flows from financing activities in the unaudited condensed consolidated statement of cash flows for the year-to-date period ended September 25, 2015, and recorded a deferred gain in other liabilities in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 25, 2015.

Procurement Regulations

A substantial majority of the Company’s revenues are generated from providing products and services under legally binding agreements or contracts with U.S. Government and foreign government customers. U.S. Government contracts are subject to extensive legal and regulatory requirements, and, from time to time, agencies of the U.S. Government investigate whether such contracts were and are being conducted in accordance with these requirements. The Company is currently cooperating with the U.S. Government on several investigations from which civil, criminal or administrative proceedings have or could result and give rise to fines, penalties, compensatory and treble damages, restitution and/or forfeitures. In that regard, as of September 25, 2015, the Company has recognized an aggregate liability of $26 million in anticipation of a settlement related to a product specification matter regarding a holographic weapon sight product in the Warrior Systems sector of the Electronic Systems segment. The Company has other ongoing government investigations, including investigations into the pricing of certain contracts entered into by the Communication Systems segment. The Company does not currently anticipate that any of these investigations will have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, under U.S. Government regulations, an indictment of the Company by a federal grand jury, or an administrative finding against the Company as to its present responsibility to be a U.S. Government contractor or subcontractor, could result in the Company being suspended for a period of time from eligibility for awards of new government contracts or task orders or in a loss of export privileges. A conviction, or an administrative finding against the Company that satisfies the requisite level of seriousness, could result in debarment from contracting with the federal government for a specified term. In addition, all of the Company’s U.S. Government contracts: (1) are subject to audit and various pricing and cost controls, (2) include standard provisions for termination for the convenience of the U.S. Government or for default, and (3) are subject to cancellation if funds for contracts become unavailable. Foreign government contracts generally include comparable provisions relating to terminations for convenience or default, as well as other procurement clauses relevant to the foreign government.

Litigation Matters

The Company is also subject to litigation, proceedings, claims or assessments and various contingent liabilities incidental to its businesses, including those specified below. Furthermore, in connection with certain business acquisitions, the Company has assumed some or all claims against, and liabilities of, such acquired businesses, including both asserted and unasserted claims and liabilities.

In accordance with the accounting standard for contingencies, the Company records a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. Generally, the loss is recorded at the amount the Company expects to resolve the liability. The estimated amounts of liabilities recorded for pending and threatened litigation are disclosed in Note 8. Amounts recoverable from insurance contracts or third parties are recorded as assets when deemed probable. At September 25, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company recorded approximately $11 million of receivables for recoveries from insurance contracts or third parties in connection with the Bashkirian Airways matter discussed below. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for its litigation matters. The Company reviews these provisions quarterly and adjusts these provisions to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. While it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome may occur in one or more of the following matters, unless otherwise stated below, the Company believes that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of these matters. With respect to the litigation matters below for which it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome may occur, an estimate of loss or range of loss is disclosed when such amount or amounts can be reasonably estimated. Although the Company believes that it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters and investigations pending against it, the results of litigation can be difficult to predict, particularly those involving jury trials. Accordingly, the Company’s current judgment as to the likelihood of loss (or our current estimate as to the potential range of loss, if any) with respect to any particular litigation matter may turn out to be wrong. Therefore, it is possible that the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company could be materially adversely affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these or other contingencies.

Class Action. In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended and restated on March 13, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. The Company believes the action lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. On April 24, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended and restated complaint. The motion has been fully briefed. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their early stages.

Government Inquiries. On July 30, 2014, the Company voluntarily contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to report information concerning its internal review related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment. The Company has received requests for interviews of current and former employees, and subpoenas for documents and other materials from the SEC and the Department of Justice concerning these self-reported matters. The Company is fully cooperating with both agencies. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with these inquiries based on the nature of the inquiries to date.

Bashkirian Airways. On July 1, 2004, lawsuits were filed on behalf of the estates of 31 Russian children in the state courts of Washington, Arizona, California, Florida, New York and New Jersey against Honeywell, Honeywell TCAS, Thales USA, Thales France, the Company and Aviation Communications & Surveillance Systems (ACSS), which is a joint venture of L-3 and Thales. The suits relate to the crash over southern Germany of a Bashkirian Airways Tupelov TU 154M aircraft and a DHL Boeing 757 cargo aircraft. On-board the Tupelov aircraft were 9 crew members and 60 passengers, including 45 children. The Boeing aircraft carried a crew of two. Both aircraft were equipped with Honeywell/ACSS Model 2000, Change 7 Traffic Collision and Avoidance Systems (TCAS). Sensing the other aircraft, the on-board DHL TCAS instructed the DHL pilot to descend, and the Tupelov on-board TCAS instructed the Tupelov pilot to climb. However, the Swiss air traffic controller ordered the Tupelov pilot to descend. The Tupelov pilot disregarded the on-board TCAS and put the Tupelov aircraft into a descent striking the DHL aircraft in midair at approximately 35,000 feet. All crew and passengers of both planes were lost. Investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board after the crash revealed that both TCAS units were performing as designed. The suits allege negligence and strict product liability based upon the design of the units and the training provided to resolve conflicting commands. The Company’s insurers accepted defense of these matters and retained counsel. The matters were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which then dismissed the actions on the basis of forum non conveniens. Plaintiffs representing 30 of the estates re-filed their complaint against ACSS on April 23, 2007 with the Barcelona Court’s Registry in Spain. On March 9, 2010, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and entered judgment against ACSS in the amount of approximately $6.7 million, all of which represented compensatory damages. Both ACSS and the plaintiffs appealed the judgment. In May 2012, the appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and entered judgment against ACSS in the amount of $48 million. ACSS filed an appeal of the judgment with the Supreme Court of Spain (the Supreme Court) on September 28, 2012. During the Supreme Court’s consideration of the appeal, 18 of 30 plaintiffs released their claims against ACSS in consideration for payments made by the Company’s insurance carriers. On February 10, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that awarded the remaining 12 plaintiffs approximately $11 million in the aggregate (including interest), plus certain legal expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in connection with the appeal to the Supreme Court. The Company’s insurers have paid the $11 million award amount into an escrow account held by the Company’s legal representatives for payment to the plaintiffs if and when the award becomes due, and have confirmed that they will pay the plaintiffs’ legal expenses on behalf of the Company once they are certified and become due. On May 20, 2015, an appeal was filed on behalf of ACSS to annul the Supreme Court decision on constitutional grounds. In October 2015, eight of the remaining 12 plaintiffs released their claims against ACSS in consideration for approximately $7.0 million in aggregate payments made from the escrow account (representing a discount of approximately $0.1 million from the portion of the $11 million award attributable to these plaintiffs). Settlement discussions with the remaining four plaintiffs are ongoing.

HVC Alkmaar. On July 23, 2014, a notice of claim was received by our former JovyAtlas business unit. The notice relates to losses resulting from a fire that occurred at an HVC Alkmaar bio-energy plant on July 21, 2013. The notice states that the fire resulted from the failure of an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) to provide sufficient power to act as a back-up energy supply, alleges that JovyAtlas was the manufacturer and service provider for the UPS and claims €11 million in estimated property damages and €35 million in estimated business interruption damages. The Company has tendered the notice of claim to its insurance carriers, who have commenced their own investigation.

Qui Tam Action. On March 14, 2012, the Company was served with a qui tam lawsuit filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in which the U.S. Government has declined to intervene. The complaint alleges violations of the False Claims Act and seeks unquantified treble damages, penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and pre-judgment interest. Plaintiff alleges that between 2004 and 2012, the Company overbilled the U.S. Government for labor hours under contracts for helicopter maintenance and repair services in Southwest Asia. On July 8, 2015, the court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment. A jury trial is scheduled for the first quarter of 2016. The Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter because: (1) significant factual issues remain in dispute, (2) the results of litigation can be difficult to predict, particularly those involving jury trials and (3) the plaintiff has not yet indicated the specific amount of damages that will be sought at trial. The Company believes the action lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.