N. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

Termination of A-12 Program. The A-12 aircraft contract was a fixed-price incentive contract for the full-scale development and initial production of the carrier-based Advanced Tactical Aircraft with the U.S. Navy and a team composed of contractors General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas (now a subsidiary of The Boeing Company). In January 1991, the U.S. Navy terminated the contract for default and demanded the contractors repay $1.4 billion in unliquidated progress payments. Following the termination, the Navy agreed to defer the collection of that amount pending a negotiated settlement or other resolution. Both contractors had full responsibility to the Navy for performance under the contract, and both are jointly and severally liable for potential liabilities arising from the termination.

Over 20 years of litigation, the trial court (the U.S. Court of Federal Claims), appeals court (the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), and the U.S. Supreme Court have issued various rulings, some in favor of the government and others in favor of the contractors.

On May 3, 2007, the trial court issued a decision upholding the government's determination of default. This decision was affirmed by a three-judge panel of the appeals court on June 2, 2009, and on November 24, 2009, the court of appeals denied the contractors' petitions for rehearing. On September 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the contractors' petitions for review as to whether the government could maintain its default claim against the contractors while invoking the state-secrets privilege to deny the contractors a defense to that claim.

On May 23, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeals, stating that the contractors had a plausible superior knowledge defense that had been stripped from them as a consequence of the government's assertion of the state-secrets privilege. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, in that circumstance, neither party can obtain judicial relief.

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings on whether the government has an obligation to share its superior knowledge with respect to highly classified information, whether the government has such an obligation when the agreement specifies information that must be shared (as was the case with respect to the A-12 contract), and whether these questions can safely be litigated by the courts without endangering state secrets. On July 7, 2011, the appeals court remanded these issues to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion. These issues remain to be resolved on remand.

We believe that the lower courts will ultimately rule in the contractors' favor on the remaining issues in the case. We expect this would leave all parties where they stood prior to the contracting officer's declaration of default, meaning that no money would be due from one party to another. Additionally, even if the lower courts were to ultimately sustain the government's default claim, we continue to believe that there are significant legal obstacles to the government's ability to collect any amount from the contractors given that no court has ever awarded a money judgment to the government. For these reasons, we have not recorded an accrual for this matter.

If, contrary to our expectations, the government prevails on its default claim and its recovery theories, the contractors could collectively be required to repay the government, on a joint and several basis, as much as $1.4 billion for progress payments received for the A-12 contract, plus interest, which was approximately $1.6 billion on December 31, 2011. This would result in a liability to us of half of the total (based upon The Boeing Company satisfying McDonnell Douglas' obligations under the contract), or approximately $1.5 billion pretax. Our after-tax charge would be approximately $830, or $2.31 per share, which would be recorded in discontinued operations. Our after-tax cash cost would be approximately $735. We believe we have sufficient resources to satisfy our obligation if required.

Other. Various claims and other legal proceedings incidental to the normal course of business are pending or threatened against us. These matters relate to such issues as government investigations and claims, the protection of the environment, asbestos-related claims and employee-related matters. The nature of litigation is such that we cannot predict the outcome of these matters. However, based on information currently available, we believe any potential liabilities in these proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Environmental

We are subject to and affected by a variety of federal, state, local and foreign environmental laws and regulations. We are directly or indirectly involved in environmental investigations or remediation at some of our current and former facilities and third-party sites that we do not own but where we have been designated a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or a state environmental agency. Based on historical experience, we expect that a significant percentage of the total remediation and compliance costs associated with these facilities will continue to be allowable contract costs and, therefore, recoverable under U.S. government contracts.

As required, we provide financial assurance for certain sites undergoing or subject to investigation or remediation. We accrue environmental costs when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Where applicable, we seek insurance recovery for costs related to environmental liability. We do not record insurance recoveries before collection is considered probable. Based on all known facts and analyses, we do not believe that our liability at any individual site, or in the aggregate, arising from such environmental conditions, will be material to our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. We also do not believe that the range of reasonably possible additional loss beyond what has been recorded would be material to our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Minimum Lease Payments

Total expense under operating leases was $258 in 2009 and 2010 and $274 in 2011. Operating leases are primarily for facilities and equipment. Future minimum lease payments due during the next five years are as follows:


Year Ended December 31
2012	$	234
2013		193
2014		149
2015		115
2016		91
Thereafter		355
Total minimum lease payments	$	1,137

Other

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Request. On September 23, 2011, the SEC's Division of Enforcement requested that we provide certain information, documents and records relating to accounting practices for revisions of estimates on contracts accounted for using the percentage-of-completion method. We are cooperating with the SEC staff. We cannot predict the outcome of this request.

Letters of Credit. In the ordinary course of business, we have entered into letters of credit and other similar arrangements with financial institutions and insurance carriers totaling approximately $1.4 billion on December 31, 2011. These include letters of credit for our international subsidiaries, which are backed by available local bank credit facilities aggregating approximately $1.1 billion. From time to time in the ordinary course of business, we guarantee the payment or performance obligations of our subsidiaries arising under certain contracts. We are aware of no event of default that would require us to satisfy these guarantees.

Government Contracts. As a government contractor, we are subject to U.S. government audits and investigations relating to our operations, including claims for fines, penalties, and compensatory and treble damages. Based on currently available information, we believe the outcome of such ongoing government disputes and investigations will not have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

In the performance of our contracts, we routinely request contract modifications that require additional funding and administrative involvement from the customer. Most often, these requests are due to customer-directed changes in scope of work. While we believe we are entitled to recovery of these costs, the resolution process with our customer may be protracted. In some cases, our request may be disputed and we are required to file a claim with the customer. Based on currently available information, we believe our outstanding modifications and other claims will be resolved without material impact to our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Aircraft Trade-ins. In connection with orders for new aircraft in funded contract backlog, our Aerospace group has outstanding options with some customers to trade in aircraft as partial consideration in their new-aircraft transaction. These trade-in commitments are structured to establish the fair market value of the trade-in aircraft at a date generally 120 or fewer days preceding delivery of the new aircraft to the customer. At that time, the customer is required to either exercise the option or allow its expiration. Any excess of the pre-established trade-in price above the fair market value at the time the new aircraft is delivered is treated as a reduction of revenue in the new-aircraft sales transaction.

Labor Agreements. Approximately one-fifth of our employees and our subsidiaries' employees are represented by labor organizations and work under local works council agreements and 51 company-negotiated agreements. A number of these agreements expire within any given year. Historically, we have been successful at renegotiating successor agreements without any material disruption of operating activities. We expect to renegotiate the terms of 10 collective agreements in 2012, covering approximately 5,000 employees. We do not expect the renegotiations will, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Product Warranties. We provide warranties to our customers associated with certain product sales. We record estimated warranty costs in the period in which the related products are delivered. The warranty liability recorded at each balance sheet date is generally based on the number of months of warranty coverage remaining for products delivered and the average historical monthly warranty payments. Warranty obligations incurred in connection with long-term production contracts are accounted for within the contract estimates at completion (EACs). Our other warranty obligations, primarily for business-jet aircraft, are included in other current liabilities and other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

The changes in the carrying amount of warranty liabilities for each of the past three years were as follows:


Year Ended December 31	2009		2010		2011
Beginning balance		$ 221	$	239	$	260
Warranty expense		71		70		88
Payments		(60)		(51)		(56)
Adjustments*		7		2		1
Ending balance		$ 239	$	260	$	293

*	Includes warranty liabilities assumed in connection with acquisitions and foreign exchange translation adjustments.