Investigations, Claims and Litigation (Unaudited)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2020

Disclosure Text Block Supplement [Abstract]

INVESTIGATIONS, CLAIMS AND LITIGATION

INVESTIGATIONS, CLAIMS AND LITIGATION

On May 4, 2012, the company commenced an action, Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. This lawsuit relates to an approximately $875 million firm fixed-price contract awarded to the company in 2007 by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for the construction and delivery of flats sequencing systems (FSS) as part of the postal automation program. The FSS have been delivered. The company’s lawsuit is based on various theories of liability. The complaint seeks approximately $63 million for unpaid portions of the contract price, and approximately $115 million based on the company’s assertions that, through various acts and omissions over the life of the contract, the USPS adversely affected the cost and schedule of performance and materially altered the company’s obligations under the contract. The United States responded to the company’s complaint with an answer, denying most of the company’s claims, and counterclaims seeking approximately $410 million, less certain amounts outstanding under the contract. The principal counterclaim alleges that the company delayed its performance and caused damages to the USPS because USPS did not realize certain costs savings as early as it had expected. On April 2, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice informed the company of a False Claims Act complaint relating to the FSS contract that was filed under seal by a relator in June 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On June 3, 2013, the United States filed a Notice informing the Court that the United States had decided not to intervene in this case. The relator alleged that the company violated the False Claims Act in a number of ways with respect to the FSS contract, alleged damage to the USPS in an amount of at least approximately $179 million annually, alleged that he was improperly discharged in retaliation, and sought an unspecified partial refund of the contract purchase price, penalties, attorney’s fees and other costs of suit. The relator later voluntarily dismissed his retaliation claim and reasserted it in a separate arbitration, which he also ultimately voluntarily dismissed. On September 5, 2014, the court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment and ordered the relator’s False Claims Act case be dismissed with prejudice. On February 16, 2018, both the company and the United States filed motions to dismiss many of the claims and counterclaims referenced above, in whole or in part. The United States also filed a motion seeking to amend its answer and counterclaim, including to reduce its counterclaim to approximately $193 million, which the court granted on June 11, 2018. On October 17, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ motions to dismiss. On February 3, 2020, the parties commenced what was expected to be a seven-week trial. The first four weeks of trial concluded, but the court postponed the remaining estimated three weeks as a result of COVID-19-related concerns. Trial is currently scheduled to resume in November 2020. Although the ultimate outcome of these matters (“the FSS matters,” collectively), including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or reasonably estimated at this time, the company intends vigorously to pursue and defend the FSS matters.

On August 8, 2013, the company received a court-appointed expert’s report in litigation pending in the Second Federal Court of the Federal District in Brazil brought by the Brazilian Post and Telegraph Corporation (ECT), a Brazilian state-owned entity, against Solystic SAS (Solystic), a French subsidiary of the company, and two of its consortium partners. In this suit, commenced on December 17, 2004, ECT alleges the consortium breached its contract with ECT and seeks damages of approximately R$111 million (the equivalent of approximately $20 million as of September 30, 2020), plus interest, inflation adjustments and attorneys’ fees, as authorized by Brazilian law, which amounts could be significant over time. The original suit sought R$89 million (the equivalent of approximately $16 million as of September 30, 2020) in damages. In October 2013, ECT asserted an additional damage claim of R$22 million (the equivalent of approximately $4 million as of September 30, 2020). In its counterclaim, Solystic alleges ECT breached the contract by wrongfully refusing to accept the equipment Solystic had designed and built and seeks damages of approximately €31 million (the equivalent of approximately $36 million as of September 30, 2020), plus interest, inflation adjustments and attorneys’ fees, as authorized by Brazilian law. The Brazilian court retained an expert to consider certain issues pending before it. On August 8, 2013 and September 10, 2014, the company received reports from the expert, which contain some recommended findings relating to liability and the damages calculations put forth by ECT. Some of the expert’s recommended findings were favorable to the company and others were favorable to ECT. In November 2014, the parties submitted comments on the expert’s most recent report. On June 16, 2015, the court published a decision denying the parties’ request to present oral testimony. In a decision dated November 13, 2018, the trial court ruled in ECT’s favor on one of its claims against Solystic, and awarded damages of R$41 million (the equivalent of approximately $7 million as of September 30, 2020) against Solystic and its consortium partners, with that amount to be adjusted for inflation and interest from November 2004 through any appeal, in accordance with the Manual of Calculations of the Federal Justice, as well as attorneys’ fees. On March 22, 2019, ECT appealed the trial court’s decision to the intermediate court of appeals. Solystic filed its appeal on April 11, 2019. On August 10, 2020, the court approved a settlement between the parties and dismissed the lawsuit.

We are engaged in remediation activities relating to environmental conditions allegedly resulting from historic operations at the former United States Navy and Grumman facilities in Bethpage, New York. For over 20 years, we have worked closely with the United States Navy, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Department of Health and other federal, state and local governmental authorities, to address legacy environmental conditions in Bethpage. We have incurred, and expect to continue to incur, as included in Note 6, substantial remediation costs related to these environmental conditions. The remediation standards or requirements to which we are subject are being reconsidered and are changing and costs may increase materially. As discussed in Note 6, the State of New York issued a Feasibility Study and an Amended Record of Decision, seeking to impose additional remedial requirements. The company is engaged in discussions with the State of New York and certain other potentially responsible parties. The State of New York has said that, among other things, it is also evaluating potential natural resource damages. In addition, we are a party to various, and expect to become a party to additional, legal proceedings and disputes related to remediation, costs, allowability and/or alleged environmental impacts in Bethpage, including with federal and state entities (including the Navy, Defense Contract Management Agency, the state, local municipalities and water districts) and insurance carriers, as well as class action and individual plaintiffs alleging personal injury and property damage and seeking both monetary and non-monetary relief. These Bethpage matters could result in additional costs, fines, penalties, sanctions, compensatory or other damages (including natural resource damages), determinations on allocation, allowability and coverage, and non-monetary relief. We cannot at this time predict or reasonably estimate the potential cumulative outcomes or ranges of possible liability of these aggregate Bethpage matters.

The company is a party to various other investigations, lawsuits, arbitration, claims, enforcement actions and other legal proceedings, including government investigations and claims, that arise in the ordinary course of our business. The nature of legal proceedings is such that we cannot assure the outcome of any particular matter. However, based on information available to the company to date, the company does not believe that the outcome of any of these other matters pending against the company is likely to have a material adverse effect on the company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial position as of September 30, 2020, or its annual results of operations and/or cash flows.