Contingencies

Raytheon Litigation

FLIR Systems, Inc. and its subsidiary, FLIR Commercial Systems, Inc. (formerly known as Indigo Systems Corporation) (together, the “FLIR Parties”), were named in a lawsuit filed by Raytheon Company (“Raytheon”) on March 2, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the "District Court"). Raytheon's complaint, as amended, asserted claims for tortious interference, patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, breach of contract, and fraudulent concealment. The FLIR Parties filed an answer to the complaint on September 2, 2008, in which they denied all material allegations. On October 27, 2010, the FLIR Parties and Raytheon entered into a settlement agreement that resolved the patent infringement claims (the "Patent Claims") pursuant to which the FLIR Parties paid $3 million to Raytheon and entitles the FLIR Parties to certain license rights in the patents that were the subject of the Patent Claims. On October 28, 2014, a four-week trial began with respect to Raytheon's remaining claims of misappropriation of trade secrets and claims related to 31 alleged trade secrets. On November 24, 2014, a jury in the District Court rejected Raytheon’s claims and determined that 27 of the alleged trade secrets were not in fact trade secrets and that neither of the FLIR Parties infringed any of the trade secrets claimed and awarded Raytheon no damages. On March 31, 2016, the District Court issued a Final Judgment denying Raytheon’s claims and awarding FLIR court costs and denying each of Raytheon’s and FLIR’s Renewed Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and denying FLIR’s Amended Rule 54(d) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Under the Texas Theft Liability Act.

On April 29, 2016, Raytheon filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") of the denial by the District Court of Raytheon’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial. On May 11, 2016, the FLIR Parties filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals of the Order of the District Court Denying the FLIR Parties’ Amended Rule 54(d) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs under the Texas Theft Liability Act, the Order Denying the FLIR Parties’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, and the Final Judgment to the extent it denied the FLIR Parties Attorneys’ Fees and Costs under the Texas Theft Liability Act. The Court of Appeals heard the matter on January 12, 2018, and on July 12, 2018 the Court of Appeals affirmed the rulings of the District Court and its finding of no liability on the part of the FLIR parties. The matter remains subject to appeal but as a result of the decision of the Court of Appeals, the Company believes that ultimate resolution of the matter will not result in material loss or gain to FLIR.

Matters Involving the United States Department of State and Department of Commerce

On October 22, 2014, the Company initially contacted the United States Department of State Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance (“DDTC”), pursuant to International Traffic in Arms Regulation (“ITAR”) § 127.12(c), regarding the unauthorized export of technical data and defense services to dual and third country nationals in at least four facilities of the Company. On April 27, 2015, the Company submitted its initial report to DDTC regarding the details of the issues raised in the October 22, 2014, submission. DDTC subsequently notified the Company that it was considering administrative proceedings under Part 128 of ITAR and requested a tolling agreement, which the Company executed on June 16, 2015 and referenced certain Company disclosures in addition to the submissions made in conjunction with the October 24, 2014 initial notification. On June 6, 2016, the Company executed a subsequent tolling agreement extending the tolling period for matters to be potentially included in an administrative proceeding for an additional 18 months and at the request of DDTC on December 1, 2017, further extended the tolling agreement for an additional six months through May 9, 2018. On April 24, 2018, the Company entered into a Consent Agreement with the DDTC to resolve these issues. The Consent Agreement has a four-year term and provides for: (i) a civil penalty of $30 million with $15 million of this amount suspended on the condition that the funds have or will be used for Department-approved Consent Agreement remedial compliance measures, (ii) the appointment of an external Special Compliance Official to oversee compliance with the Consent Agreement and the ITAR; (iii) two external audits of the Company’s ITAR compliance program; and (iv) continued implementation of ongoing remedial compliance measures and additional remedial compliance measures related to automated systems and ITAR compliance policies, procedures, and training. During the three month period ended March 31, 2018, the Company recorded a $15 million charge for the portion of the penalty that is not subject to suspension. As of June 30, 2018, the remaining amount payable of $14 million has been recorded in pension and other long-term liabilities. The Company expects recent and future investments in remedial compliance measures will be sufficient to cover the $15 million suspension amount.


Note 16.	Contingencies - (Continued)

As part of the Consent Agreement DDTC acknowledged that the Company voluntarily disclosed certain alleged Arms Export Control Act and ITAR violations, which are resolved pursuant to the Consent Agreement, cooperated in, and instituted a number of compliance program improvements during the course of DDTC's review.

In May 2017, the Company submitted an initial notification to DDTC regarding potential violations related to certain export classifications obtained through the commodity jurisdiction process and a final voluntary disclosure in August 2017. DDTC acknowledged the notification and at the request of DDTC, the Company executed a tolling agreements for this matter, suspending the statute of limitations through January 13, 2019. This matter was not resolved pursuant to the Consent Agreement identified above and remains under review.

In June 2017, the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security informed the Company of additional export licensing requirements that restrict the Company’s ability to sell certain thermal products without a license to customers in China not identified on a list maintained by the United States Department of Commerce. This action was precipitated by concerns of sale without a license or potential diversion of some of the Company's products to prohibited end users and to countries subject to economic and other sanctions implemented by the United States. The United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security subsequently favorably modified these restrictions to reduce the applicability of the restrictions to sales of FLIR's Tau camera cores (as opposed to finished products containing Tau camera cores) to customers in China not identified on a list maintained by the United States Department of Commerce and persons in a country other than those in EAR Country Group A:5 (Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 of the EAR). If the Company is found to have violated applicable rules and regulations with respect to customers and limitations on the end use of the Company’s products, the Company could be subject to substantial fines and penalties, suspension of existing licenses or other authorizations and/or loss or suspension of export privileges.

The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the time it may take to resolve these matters or the amount or range of potential loss, penalty or other government action, if any, that may be incurred in connection with these matters. However, an unfavorable outcome could result in substantial fines and penalties or loss or suspension of export privileges or of particular authorizations that could be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows in and following the period in which such an outcome becomes estimable or known.

SkyWatch Product Quality Matters

In March 2016, the Company learned of potential quality concerns with respect to as many as 315 Level III and Level IV SkyWatch Surveillance Towers sold by FLIR and companies acquired by FLIR from 2002 through 2014. The Company notified customers who purchased the affected SkyWatch Towers of the potential concerns and, as a precautionary measure, also temporarily suspended production of all Level III and Level IV SkyWatch Towers pending the completion of its review and the implementation of any necessary remedial measures. The Company identified the cause of these quality issues, notified customers of their option to request repair and modification of their in-field units, and has begun in-field repairs of identified affected units. While there still remains uncertainty related to estimating the costs associated with a potential remedy and number of units which may require such remedy, the Company currently estimates the range of potential loss on remaining units to be between $5.8 million and $13.1 million. As no single amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount within the range, the Company has recorded a liability of $5.8 million as of June 30, 2018. Factors underlying this estimated range of loss may change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate.

Other Matters

The Company is also subject to other legal and administrative proceedings, investigations, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business not specifically identified above. In these identified matters and others not specifically identified, the Company records a liability with respect to a matter when management believes it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any probable and estimable losses for matters in existence on the date hereof. 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 the outcome of each of these matters is currently not determinable, the Company does not expect that the ultimate resolution of any such matter will individually have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The costs to resolve all such matters may in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.