XML 35 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.0.1
Commitments and Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
a.  Legal Matters
The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to legal proceedings, including litigation in U.S. federal and state courts, which arise out of, and are incidental to, the ordinary course of the Company’s on-going and historical businesses. The Company is also subject from time to time to governmental investigations by federal and state agencies. The Company cannot predict the outcome of such proceedings with any degree of certainty. Loss contingency provisions are recorded for probable losses at management’s best estimate of a loss. When only a range of amounts can be reasonably estimated and no amount within the range is more likely than another, the low end of the range is recorded. These estimates are often initially developed substantially earlier than when the ultimate loss is known, and are refined each quarterly reporting period as additional information becomes available.
Merger-Related Litigation
FTC Litigation
On January 25, 2022, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against Lockheed Martin and the Company in the FTC’s administrative court pursuant to Part 3 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC also filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ("DDC") seeking a Preliminary Injunction to stop the deal pending an administrative trial, which was scheduled to begin on June 16, 2022. The FTC’s administrative complaint alleged that the Merger Agreement constituted an unfair method of competition in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and both the administrative complaint and the DDC complaint alleged that the Merger, if consummated, would have substantially lessened competition in relevant markets in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The administrative complaint sought the following remedies: if the Merger was consummated, divestiture or reconstitution of all associated and necessary assets, in a manner that restores competition in relevant markets; a prohibition against any transaction between the Company and Lockheed Martin that combined the businesses in relevant markets except as approved by the FTC; a requirement that, for a period of time, the Company and Lockheed Martin provide prior notice to the FTC of acquisitions, mergers, consolidations, or any other combinations of their businesses in relevant markets; a requirement to file periodic compliance reports with the FTC; and any other relief appropriate to correct or remedy the anticompetitive effects of the transaction or to restore the Company as a viable, independent competitor in the relevant markets. The Merger Agreement provided that Lockheed Martin could elect to defend against the FTC Litigation within 30 days of the filing of the litigation or terminate the Merger Agreement. On February 13, 2022, Lockheed Martin notified the Company that it had elected to terminate the Merger Agreement. On February 14, 2022, pursuant to the parties’ joint motion, the administrative complaint and DDC complaint were dismissed.
Shareholder Litigation
As previously disclosed, various lawsuits were filed in the first quarter of 2021 against the Company and members of the Company’s Board of Directors (collectively referred to as the "Actions") alleging that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) (and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by, among other things, omitting certain allegedly material information with respect to the Merger in the preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company on January 25, 2021, and/or the definitive proxy statement filed by the Company on February 5, 2021, and, in the case of three of the Actions, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger. In April 2021, following the Company’s filing of additional definitive proxy soliciting materials and its agreement to pay an immaterial amount to cover plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses, the plaintiffs in each of the Actions voluntarily dismissed their lawsuits. No assurance can be given that additional lawsuits will not be filed against the Company and/or its directors and officers in connection with the Merger.
Proxy Contest Litigation
Lichtenstein, Henderson, McNiff and Turchin Complaint
On February 7, 2022, Warren G. Lichtenstein, James R. Henderson, Audrey A. McNiff and Martin Turchin (the "LHMT Plaintiffs") filed suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking, among other things, declaratory relief relating to SPH Group Holdings LLC’s (“SPH”) nomination of the LHMT Plaintiffs and its other nominees for election to the Board of Directors of the Company, a nominal party to the lawsuit, at its 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the "Annual Meeting"). The LHMT Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit due to disagreements among the Company’s evenly divided eight-member Board, which consists of the four LHMT Plaintiffs and four other directors – Eileen P. Drake, Thomas Corcoran, General Kevin P. Chilton USAF (Ret.) and General Lance W. Lord, USAF (Ret.) (the "CCDL Defendants"), over matters relating to Steel Holdings’ nomination and the Annual Meeting. As enumerated in the lawsuit, the LHMT Plaintiffs seek the following relief:
•A declaration that no Aerojet officer, director, employee or anyone else acting or purporting to act on the Company’s behalf may speak on behalf of the Company or take any action on behalf of the Company without proper authorization from the Board or a duly authorized committee of the Board under Delaware law;
•A declaration that, so long as the Board is evenly divided regarding the election at the Annual Meeting, no officer, employee, advisor or agent of the Company may take action on behalf of the Company for the purpose of directly or indirectly supporting either the LHMT Plaintiffs or the CCDL Defendants in connection with the election at the Annual Meeting;
•A declaration that actions purportedly taken by the CCDL Defendants on behalf of the Company without proper authorization were unauthorized, invalid and void;
•A permanent injunction prohibiting the CCDL Defendants from taking any action or purporting to take any action on behalf of the Company without proper authorization; and
•A permanent injunction specifying that the Company and its officers, employees agents and advisors in their capacity as such shall remain neutral in any electoral dispute between the LHMT Plaintiffs and the CCDL Defendants.
Finally, the LHMT Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order to prevent the CCDL Defendants from making any public statements in the name of or on behalf of the Company without proper authorization and from using Company resources to support any candidate for election at the Annual Meeting while the Board remains evenly divided. At a February 15, 2022, hearing on the LHMT Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, the Court of Chancery granted the LHMT Plaintiffs’ motion and ordered the parties to submit a form of order reflecting the Court’s modifications to the LHMT Plaintiffs’ proposed order. The LHMT Plaintiffs expect an order will be entered providing that none of the CCDL Defendants or any director, officer employee, advisor or agent of the Company or anyone acting in concert with them shall, absent written Board approval, make or issue (i) any public statement, press release, or disclosure pertaining to the proxy contest in the name of the Company, but may do so in their individual capacity, or (ii) take action on behalf of the Company or use Company resources to support any candidate. The Court declined to require the Company to make any revised disclosures.
Chilton, Corcoran, Drake and Lord Complaint
On February 11, 2022, General Chilton, Mr. Corcoran, Ms. Drake, and General Lord (collectively, the "CCDL Plaintiffs") filed suit against Mr. Lichtenstein, Mr. Henderson, Ms. McNiff, and Mr. Turchin (collectively, the “LHMT Defendants”) and SPH (SPH and the LHMT Defendants, collectively, “LHMTS Defendants”) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking, among other things, an order appointing a special committee of the Company’s Board, consisting of General Chilton, Mr. Corcoran, and General Lord, to manage the Company’s response to a proxy contest recently launched by SPH, Mr. Lichtenstein and his nominees (the "Proxy Contest") in light of the Board’s current deadlock regarding the upcoming annual election, or, alternatively, appointing a custodian to break the deadlock. The Company is a named plaintiff and a named nominal defendant in the lawsuit. The LHMTS Defendants dispute whether the CCDL Plaintiffs were authorized to name the Company as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The CCDL Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit due to disagreements among the Company’s evenly divided eight-member Board, which consists of the four CCDL Plaintiffs and the four LHMT Defendants – relating to the election of directors at the Company’s 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The CCDL Plaintiffs also filed the lawsuit due to alleged actions by the LHMT Defendants that Plaintiffs contend constitute breaches of the Individual Defendants’ fiduciary duties. The CCDL Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Lichtenstein breached his fiduciary duties due to his alleged engaging in unauthorized communications regarding the Company’s merger with Lockheed Martin; his alleged actions relating to the Company’s internal investigation into his alleged inappropriate behavior and conduct, and his alleged attempts to guarantee his re-nomination to the Company's Board regardless of the investigation’s outcome. The lawsuit further alleges that all the LHMT Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by participating in discussions regarding, and voting on, matters in which they are allegedly self-interested, and by allegedly failing to disclose material information about Mr. Lichtenstein’s intent and actions to take control of the Company in the Schedule 13D Amendments filed on February 1 and February 8. Finally, the CCDL Plaintiffs allege that SPH aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The CCDL Plaintiffs further seek (i) a declaration that the LHMT Defendants are all interested with respect to the proxy contest, (ii) a declaration that the LHMT Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, as well as compensatory damages; (iii) removal of Mr. Lichtenstein as a director as a consequence for alleged breaches of his fiduciary duty of loyalty, pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 225(c); and (iv) a declaration that SPH violated the advanced notice bylaw by allegedly failing to include the requisite disclosures in the notice of nomination.
Asbestos Litigation
The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death and seeking various monetary damages due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are pending in Illinois state courts. There were 127 asbestos cases pending as of December 31, 2021.
Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. The aggregate settlement costs and legal and administrative fees associated with the Company’s asbestos litigation has been immaterial for the last three years. As of December 31, 2021, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount related to pending claims.
United States ex. rel. Markus vs. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings
In the case captioned United States ex. rel. Markus vs. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-02245- WBS-AC, the Department of Justice completed its review of the case and declined to intervene in June 2018. The case was originally filed under seal in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California in September 2017 and alleged causes of action against the Company based on false claims, retaliation, and wrongful termination of employment seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, and compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2019, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the False Claims Act ("FCA") counts of the complaint and a Motion to Compel Arbitration on the employment based claims. In May 2019, the court dismissed one count of the FCA claim, denied the motion to dismiss the remaining FCA counts, and moved the employment based claims to arbitration. In September 2021, each party filed a motion for summary judgment. In February 2022, the Court denied Relator’s motion for summary judgment in full and granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment in part. Specifically, the Court rejected Relator’s false certification allegations in their entirety while also significantly diminishing the number of U.S. government contracts at issue in the litigation, which number excludes both the majority of contracts specified in Relator’s Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") as well as numerous contracts regarding which Relator purported to make claims but that were not specified in the SAC. The Court found disputed issues of material fact with regard to the remaining contracts. The Company continues to vigorously contest the complaint’s allegations and has not recorded any liability for this matter as of December 31, 2021.
City of Wabash, Indiana v. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings
On November 15, 2021, a lawsuit entitled City of Wabash, Indiana v. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-878 was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana against the Company alleging causes of action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act and the Indiana Environmental Legal Action Statute and seeking damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The action was served on the Company on January 11, 2022. The Company will vigorously contest the complaint’s allegations and has not recorded any liability for this matter as of December 31, 2021.
b. Environmental Matters
The Company is involved in approximately 40 environmental matters under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, and other federal, state, and local laws relating to soil and groundwater contamination, hazardous waste management activities, and other environmental matters at some of its current and former facilities. The Company is also involved in a number of remedial activities at third party sites, not owned by the Company, where it is designated a potentially responsible party ("PRP") by either the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and/or a state agency. In many of these matters, the Company is involved with other PRPs. In some instances, the Company’s liability and proportionate share of costs have not been determined largely due to uncertainties as to the nature and extent of site conditions and the Company’s involvement. While government agencies frequently claim PRPs are jointly and severally liable at such sites, in the Company’s experience, interim and final allocations of liability and costs are generally made based on relative contributions of waste or contamination. Anticipated costs associated with environmental remediation that are probable and estimable are accrued. In cases where a date to complete remedial activities at a particular site cannot be determined by reference to agreements or otherwise, the Company projects costs over an appropriate time period not exceeding 15 years. In such cases, generally the Company does not have the ability to reasonably estimate environmental remediation costs that are beyond this period. Factors that could result in changes to the Company’s estimates include completion of current and future soil and groundwater investigations, new claims, future agency demands, discovery of more or less contamination than expected, discovery of new contaminants, modification of planned remedial actions, changes in estimated time required to remediate, new technologies, and changes in laws and regulations.
As of December 31, 2021, the aggregate range of these anticipated environmental costs was $296.4 million to $453.8 million and the accrued amount was $296.4 million. See Note 8(c) for a summary of the environmental reserve activity. Of these accrued liabilities, approximately 98% relates to the Company’s U.S. government contracting business and a portion of this liability is recoverable. The significant environmental sites are discussed below. The balance of the accrued liabilities, which are not recoverable from the U.S. government, relate to other sites for which the Company’s obligations are probable and estimable.
Sacramento, California Site
In 1989, a federal district court in California approved a Partial Consent Decree ("PCD") requiring Aerojet Rocketdyne, among other things, to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study to determine the nature and extent of impacts due to the release of chemicals from the Sacramento, California site, monitor the American River and offsite public water supply wells, operate Groundwater Extraction and Treatment facilities that collect groundwater at the site perimeter, and pay certain government oversight costs. The primary chemicals of concern for both on-site and off-site groundwater are trichloroethylene, perchlorate, and n-nitrosodimethylamine. A 2002 PCD revision (a) separated the Sacramento site into multiple operable units to allow quicker implementation of remedies for critical areas; (b) required the Company to guarantee up to $75 million (in addition to a prior $20 million guarantee) to assure that Aerojet Rocketdyne’s Sacramento remediation activities are fully funded; and (c) removed approximately 2,600 acres of non-contaminated land from the EPA superfund designation. Obligations under the $75 million aggregate guarantee are limited to $10 million in any year. Both the $75 million aggregate guarantee and the $10 million annual limitation are subject to adjustment annually for inflation.
Aerojet Rocketdyne is involved in various stages of soil and groundwater investigation, remedy selection, design, construction, operation and maintenance associated with the operable units, all of which are conducted under the direction and oversight of the EPA, including unilateral administrative orders, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") and Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region ("RWQCB"). On September 22, 2016, the EPA completed its first five-year remedy review of the Sacramento superfund site. The five-year review required by statute and regulation applies to all remedial actions which result in hazardous substances above levels that allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The Company worked with the EPA to address and remedy the findings of the 2016 five-year remedy review. On September 15, 2021, the EPA issued its second five-year remedy review and concluded that the remedies are functioning as intended for the soil and groundwater contamination and that the vapor intrusion investigation and mitigation activities are protective against vapor intrusion risks. The Company is working with the EPA, DTSC, and RWQCB on the implementation of required onsite land use restrictions.
The entire southern portion of the site known as Rio Del Oro was under state orders issued in the 1990s from DTSC and the RWQCB to investigate and remediate soil and groundwater contamination. In 2008, the DTSC released all but approximately 400 acres of the Rio Del Oro property from DTSC’s environmental orders regarding soil contamination although the property remains subject to the RWQCB’s orders to investigate and remediate groundwater environmental contamination emanating offsite from the property.
As of December 31, 2021, the estimated range of anticipated costs discussed above for the Sacramento, California site was $214.7 million to $347.7 million and the accrued amount was $214.7 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable. See Note 8(c) below for further discussion on recoverability.
Baldwin Park Operable Unit
As a result of its former Azusa, California operations, in 1994, Aerojet Rocketdyne was named a PRP by the EPA in the area of the San Gabriel Valley Basin superfund site known as the BPOU. In 2002, Aerojet Rocketdyne, along with seven other PRPs (the "Cooperating Respondents") signed a project agreement with the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, and five water companies. The 2002 project agreement terminated in 2017 and the parties executed a project agreement which became operational on May 9, 2017. The agreement has a ten-year term and requires the Cooperating Respondents to fund through an escrow account the ongoing operation, maintenance, and administrative costs of certain treatment and water distribution facilities owned and operated by the water companies. There are also provisions in the project agreement for maintaining financial assurance.
Pursuant to the 2017 agreement with the remaining Cooperating Respondents, Aerojet Rocketdyne's current share of future BPOU costs will be approximately 74%.
As part of Aerojet Rocketdyne’s sale of its Electronics and Information Systems ("EIS") business to Northrop Grumman Corporation ("Northrop") in October 2001, the EPA approved a prospective purchaser agreement with Northrop to absolve it of a pre-closing liability for contamination caused by the Azusa, California operations, which liability remains with Aerojet Rocketdyne. As part of that agreement, the Company agreed to provide a $25 million guarantee of its obligations under the project agreement.
As of December 31, 2021, the estimated range of anticipated costs was $64.7 million to $78.0 million and the accrued amount was $64.7 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable. See Note 8(c) below for further discussion on recoverability.
c. Environmental Reserves and Estimated Recoveries
Environmental Reserves
The Company reviews on a quarterly basis estimated future remediation costs and has an established practice of estimating environmental remediation costs over a fifteen year period, except for those environmental remediation costs with a specific contractual term. Environmental liabilities at the BPOU site are currently estimated through the term of the project agreement, which expires in May 2027. As the period for which estimated environmental remediation costs lengthens, the reliability of such estimates decreases. These estimates consider the investigative work and analysis of engineers, outside environmental consultants, and the advice of legal staff regarding the status and anticipated results of various administrative and legal proceedings. In most cases, only a range of reasonably possible costs can be estimated. In establishing the Company’s reserves, the most probable estimate is used when determinable; otherwise, the minimum amount is used when no single amount in the range is more probable. Accordingly, such estimates can change as the Company periodically evaluates and revises these estimates as new information becomes available. The Company cannot predict whether new information gained as projects progress will affect the estimated liability accrued. The timing of payment for estimated future environmental costs is influenced by a number of factors, such as the regulatory approval process and the time required designing, constructing, and implementing the remedy.
The following table summarizes the Company’s environmental reserve activity:
Aerojet
Rocketdyne-
Sacramento		Aerojet
Rocketdyne-
BPOU		Other
Aerojet
Rocketdyne
Sites		Total
Aerojet
Rocketdyne		Other Total
Environmental
Reserve
 (In millions)
December 31, 2018$207.4 $103.8 $12.4 $323.6 $4.3 $327.9 
Additions17.0 (0.8)0.3 16.5 0.2 16.7 
Expenditures(20.8)(13.4)(0.9)(35.1)(0.3)(35.4)
December 31, 2019203.6 89.6 11.8 305.0 4.2 309.2 
Additions30.9 (0.2)— 30.7 1.7 32.4 
Expenditures(26.1)(13.2)(1.2)(40.5)(0.5)(41.0)
December 31, 2020208.4 76.2 10.6 295.2 5.4 300.6 
Additions28.8 2.5 3.7 35.0 0.3 35.3 
Expenditures(22.5)(14.0)(2.5)(39.0)(0.5)(39.5)
December 31, 2021$214.7 $64.7 $11.8 $291.2 $5.2 $296.4 
The effect of the final resolution of environmental matters and the Company’s obligations for environmental remediation and compliance cannot be accurately predicted due to the uncertainty concerning both the amount and timing of future expenditures and due to regulatory or technological changes. The Company continues its efforts to mitigate past and future costs through pursuit of claims for recoveries from insurance coverage and other PRPs and continued investigation of new and more cost effective remediation alternatives and associated technologies.
Estimated Recoveries
On January 12, 1999, Aerojet Rocketdyne and the U.S. government reached a settlement agreement ("Global Settlement") covering environmental costs associated with the Company's Sacramento site and its former Azusa site. Pursuant to the Global Settlement, the Company can recover 88% of its environmental remediation costs through the establishment of prices for Aerojet Rocketdyne's products and services sold to the U.S. government. Additionally, in conjunction with the sale of the EIS business in 2001, Aerojet Rocketdyne entered into an agreement with Northrop (the "Northrop Agreement") whereby Aerojet Rocketdyne is reimbursed by Northrop for a portion of environmental expenditures eligible for recovery under the Global Settlement, subject to an annual billing limitation of $6.0 million and a cumulative limitation of $189.7 million which was reached in June 2017. The following table summarizes the Northrop Agreement activity (in millions):
Total reimbursable costs under the Northrop Agreement$189.7 
Amount reimbursed to the Company through December 31, 2021(149.2)
Receivable from Northrop included in the balance sheet at December 31, 2021$40.5 
Environmental remediation costs are primarily incurred by the Company's Aerospace and Defense segment, and certain of these costs are recoverable from the Company's contracts with the U.S. government. The Company currently estimates approximately 12% of its future Aerospace and Defense segment environmental remediation costs will not likely be reimbursable and are expensed. Allowable environmental remediation costs are charged to the Company’s contracts with the U.S. government as the costs are incurred. Because these costs are recovered through forward-pricing arrangements, the ability of Aerojet Rocketdyne to continue recovering these costs from the U.S. government depends on Aerojet Rocketdyne’s sustained business volume from U.S. government contracts and programs.
While the Company continues to seek an arrangement with the U.S. government to recover environmental expenditures in excess of the reimbursement ceiling identified in the Global Settlement, there can be no assurances that such a recovery will be obtained, or if not obtained, that such unreimbursed environmental expenditures will not have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows.
Environmental reserves and estimated recoveries impact on the consolidated statements of operations
The following table summarizes the financial information for the impact of environmental reserves and recoveries to the consolidated statements of operations:
Year Ended December 31,
202120202019
 (In millions)
Expense to consolidated statement of operations$4.1 $4.3 $2.1 
Arrangements with Off-Balance Sheet Risk
As of December 31, 2021, arrangements with off-balance sheet risk consisted of: 
•$27.8 million in outstanding commercial letters of credit, the majority of which may be renewed, primarily to collateralize obligations for environmental remediation and insurance coverage.
•$56.6 million in outstanding surety bonds to primarily satisfy indemnification obligations for environmental remediation coverage.
•Up to $120.0 million aggregate in guarantees by the Company of Aerojet Rocketdyne’s obligations to U.S. government agencies for environmental remediation activities.
•Guarantees, jointly and severally, by the Company’s material domestic subsidiaries of their obligations under the Senior Credit Facility.
In addition to the items discussed above, the Company has and will from time to time enter into certain types of contracts that require the Company to indemnify parties against potential third-party and other claims. These contracts primarily relate to: (i) divestiture agreements, under which the Company may provide customary indemnification to purchasers of its businesses or assets including, for example, claims arising from the operation of the businesses prior to disposition, and liability to investigate and remediate environmental contamination existing prior to disposition; (ii) certain real estate leases, under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for claims arising from the use of the applicable premises; and (iii) certain agreements with officers and directors, under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities arising out of their relationship with the Company. The terms of such obligations vary. Generally, a maximum obligation is not explicitly stated.
Additionally, the Company has open purchase orders and other commitments to suppliers, subcontractors, and other outsourcing partners for equipment, materials, and supplies in the normal course of business. These amounts are based on volumes consistent with anticipated requirements to fulfill purchase orders or contracts for product deliveries received, or expected to be received, from customers. A substantial portion of these amounts are recoverable through the Company's contracts with the U.S. government.
The Company provides product warranties in conjunction with certain product sales. The majority of the Company’s warranties are a one-year standard warranty for parts, workmanship, and compliance with specifications. On occasion, the Company has made commitments beyond the standard warranty obligation. While the Company has contracts with warranty
provisions, there is not a history of any significant warranty claims experience. A reserve for warranty exposure is made on a product by product basis when it is both estimable and probable. These costs are included in the program’s estimate at completion and are expensed in accordance with the Company’s revenue recognition methodology as allowed under GAAP for that particular contract.