Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 23, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	18. Commitments and Contingencies *Procurement Regulations* A substantial majority of the Company’s revenues are generated from providing products and services under legally binding agreements or contracts with the U.S. Government, foreign government customers and state and local governments. 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, 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 9. Amounts recoverable from insurance contracts or third parties are recorded as assets when deemed probable. At September 23, 2016, the Company did not record any amounts for recoveries from insurance contracts or third parties in connection with the amount of liabilities recorded for pending and threatened litigation. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for its litigation matters. The Company reviews 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. Therefore, it is possible that one or more of the following or other contingencies could have a material impact on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company in future periods. EoTech Class Actions. In December 2015 and February 2016, three putative class action complaints against the Company were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri and the United States District Court of the District of Oregon. In March 2016, two additional putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which assert similar claims against the Company. In August of 2016, all five cases were consolidated into a single, putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The complaints allege that the Company’s EoTech business unit knowingly sold defective holographic weapons sights, and seek monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses based on claims including breach of warranty, fraud, violation of state consumer protection statutes and unjust enrichment. In October 2016, the parties reached a settlement in principle to resolve the allegations in these cases. The proposed settlement is subject to court approval. The anticipated costs of this settlement are reflected in the Company’s financial results. Securities 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. On March 30, 2016, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all claims against the Company’s officers and allowed the claim against the Company to proceed to discovery. Discovery has commenced. On June 30, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which is pending before the District Court. The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. 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 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 and is currently in discussions with the government regarding a possible settlement. The Company does not currently believe that any such settlement will have a material financial impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows in future periods. 401(k) Plan Class Action. On June 24, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of participants in and beneficiaries of a Company-sponsored 401(k) plan. An amended complaint was filed on September 29, 2016. As amended, the complaint alleges that certain of the Company’s officers breached fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by making the Company’s stock available as an investment alternative under the plan during a period prior to the disclosure of misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages, equitable relief, pre-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend against it vigorously. 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. Derivative Action. On July 13, 2016, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached fiduciary duties, caused corporate waste and were unjustly enriched in connection with misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment. The complaint seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, equitable relief and fees and expenses on behalf of the Company. The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. 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. Bashkirian Airways. In March 2016, approximately $3.7 million was paid from the escrow account on behalf of the remaining four plaintiffs in full satisfaction of the amounts awarded to them. The remaining escrow balance was returned to the Company’s insurers. 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.

18. Commitments and Contingencies

Procurement Regulations

A substantial majority of the Company’s revenues are generated from providing products and services under legally binding agreements or contracts with the U.S. Government, foreign government customers and state and local governments. 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, 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 9. Amounts recoverable from insurance contracts or third parties are recorded as assets when deemed probable. At September 23, 2016, the Company did not record any amounts for recoveries from insurance contracts or third parties in connection with the amount of liabilities recorded for pending and threatened litigation. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for its litigation matters. The Company reviews 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. Therefore, it is possible that one or more of the following or other contingencies could have a material impact on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company in future periods.

EoTech Class Actions. In December 2015 and February 2016, three putative class action complaints against the Company were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri and the United States District Court of the District of Oregon. In March 2016, two additional putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which assert similar claims against the Company. In August of 2016, all five cases were consolidated into a single, putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The complaints allege that the Company’s EoTech business unit knowingly sold defective holographic weapons sights, and seek monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses based on claims including breach of warranty, fraud, violation of state consumer protection statutes and unjust enrichment. In October 2016, the parties reached a settlement in principle to resolve the allegations in these cases. The proposed settlement is subject to court approval. The anticipated costs of this settlement are reflected in the Company’s financial results.

Securities 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. On March 30, 2016, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all claims against the Company’s officers and allowed the claim against the Company to proceed to discovery. Discovery has commenced. On June 30, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which is pending before the District Court. The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. 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 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 and is currently in discussions with the government regarding a possible settlement. The Company does not currently believe that any such settlement will have a material financial impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows in future periods.

401(k) Plan Class Action. On June 24, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of participants in and beneficiaries of a Company-sponsored 401(k) plan. An amended complaint was filed on September 29, 2016. As amended, the complaint alleges that certain of the Company’s officers breached fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by making the Company’s stock available as an investment alternative under the plan during a period prior to the disclosure of misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages, equitable relief, pre-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend against it vigorously. 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.

Derivative Action. On July 13, 2016, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached fiduciary duties, caused corporate waste and were unjustly enriched in connection with misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment. The complaint seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, equitable relief and fees and expenses on behalf of the Company. The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. 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.

Bashkirian Airways. In March 2016, approximately $3.7 million was paid from the escrow account on behalf of the remaining four plaintiffs in full satisfaction of the amounts awarded to them. The remaining escrow balance was returned to the Company’s insurers.

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.