Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 29, 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 September 29, 2017, 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. 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 July 7, 2017, the court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement and dismissing the class action lawsuits with prejudice. 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 against the Company and certain of its officers. A consolidated amended and restated complaint was filed on March 13, 2015, alleging violations of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment. On March 30, 2016, the 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, and the Company’s insurers subsequently paid the settlement amount into an escrow account to fully fund the settlement. On August 16, 2017, the court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice. 401(k) Plan Class Action. On January 27, 2017, 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. The 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 2014 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 October 4, 2017, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court also directed that the plaintiff has until October 26, 2017 to file a motion seeking permission to amend the complaint. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter at this time. 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, which has not been served on any defendant, 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, if the plaintiff seeks to pursue it, intends to defend against the suit 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 the Company’s 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 29, 2017, 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. 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 July 7, 2017, the court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement and dismissing the class action lawsuits with prejudice.

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 against the Company and certain of its officers. A consolidated amended and restated complaint was filed on March 13, 2015, alleging violations of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment. On March 30, 2016, the 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, and the Company’s insurers subsequently paid the settlement amount into an escrow account to fully fund the settlement. On August 16, 2017, the court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice.

401(k) Plan Class Action. On January 27, 2017, 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. The 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 2014 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 October 4, 2017, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court also directed that the plaintiff has until October 26, 2017 to file a motion seeking permission to amend the complaint. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter at this time.

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, which has not been served on any defendant, 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, if the plaintiff seeks to pursue it, intends to defend against the suit 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 the Company’s 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.