Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies [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 March 31, 2017, the Company recorded approximately $34.5 million of receivables 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. During 2015 and 2016, five putative class action complaints against the Company were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri alleging that the Company’s EoTech business unit knowingly sold defective holographic weapons sights (see Andrew Tyler Foster, et al., v. L-3 Communications EoTech, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15 CV 03519 BCW). In October 2016, the parties reached a settlement in principle to resolve the allegations in these cases. On February 15, 2017, the Company received preliminary approval from the court to settle the five class action consumer lawsuits filed. Following an agreed-to notice period in which any contentions from objectors are addressed, the court, in its discretion and following a fairness hearing that has been scheduled for June 30, 2017, will order final approval of the settlement and the litigation will be resolved. Any final approval order from the court is subject to appeal. Prior to final resolution of this litigation, either party retains rights to withdraw from the settlement under circumstances delineated in the settlement agreement. There are numerous risks associated with this settlement, including that the court finds that the settlement is not fair and adequate to the class members or for any other reason that the court deems appropriate to withhold final approval. If final approval does not occur, the litigation would recommence. As of March 31, 2017, the Company has accrued the amount deemed appropriate for this matter. 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. On December 20, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter for $34.5 million, subject to the execution of definitive settlement documents and final court approval. On February 22, 2017, the parties executed a final settlement agreement. On March 10, 2017, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. In accordance with the settlement agreement, the Company’s insurers have paid the settlement amount into an escrow account that will be used to fully fund the settlement subject to the terms of the settlement agreement. A fairness hearing for the proposed settlement has been scheduled for August 10, 2017. 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. The amended complaint alleged 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 sought, among other things, monetary damages, equitable relief, pre-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. On December 2, 2016, the matter was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On January 27, 2017, a new putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the same 401(k) participants and beneficiaries, asserting substantially similar claims against the same officers of the Company. On March 28, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the action. 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. 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 March 31, 2017, the Company recorded approximately $34.5 million of receivables 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. During 2015 and 2016, five putative class action complaints against the Company were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri alleging that the Company’s EoTech business unit knowingly sold defective holographic weapons sights (see Andrew Tyler Foster, et al., v. L-3 Communications EoTech, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15 CV 03519 BCW). In October 2016, the parties reached a settlement in principle to resolve the allegations in these cases. On February 15, 2017, the Company received preliminary approval from the court to settle the five class action consumer lawsuits filed. Following an agreed-to notice period in which any contentions from objectors are addressed, the court, in its discretion and following a fairness hearing that has been scheduled for June 30, 2017, will order final approval of the settlement and the litigation will be resolved. Any final approval order from the court is subject to appeal. Prior to final resolution of this litigation, either party retains rights to withdraw from the settlement under circumstances delineated in the settlement agreement. There are numerous risks associated with this settlement, including that the court finds that the settlement is not fair and adequate to the class members or for any other reason that the court deems appropriate to withhold final approval. If final approval does not occur, the litigation would recommence. As of March 31, 2017, the Company has accrued the amount deemed appropriate for this matter.

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. On December 20, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter for $34.5 million, subject to the execution of definitive settlement documents and final court approval. On February 22, 2017, the parties executed a final settlement agreement. On March 10, 2017, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. In accordance with the settlement agreement, the Company’s insurers have paid the settlement amount into an escrow account that will be used to fully fund the settlement subject to the terms of the settlement agreement. A fairness hearing for the proposed settlement has been scheduled for August 10, 2017.

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. The amended complaint alleged 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 sought, among other things, monetary damages, equitable relief, pre-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. On December 2, 2016, the matter was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On January 27, 2017, a new putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the same 401(k) participants and beneficiaries, asserting substantially similar claims against the same officers of the Company. On March 28, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the action. 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.

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.