Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

May 31, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies and Arrangements with Off-Balance Sheet Risk [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

7. 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, or when a best estimate cannot be made, a minimum loss contingency amount 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. For legal settlements where there is no stated amount for interest, the Company will estimate an interest factor and discount the liability accordingly.

Groundwater Litigation

In December 2011, Aerojet received notice of a lawsuit, Sun Ridge LLC, et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. 34-2011-00114675, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court. The complaint, which also names McDonnell Douglas Corporation (now Boeing Corporation), was filed by owners of properties adjacent to the Aerojet property in Rancho Cordova, California and alleges damages attributable to contamination of groundwater including diminution of property value and increased costs associated with ensuring water supplies in connection with real estate development. In an effort to promote settlement negotiations, the parties entered into a tolling agreement and plaintiffs dismissed their complaint without prejudice. Since this matter is in the early stages, the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate what the outcome of this complaint will be. Accordingly, no estimate of liability has been accrued for this matter at May 31, 2012.

Asbestos Litigation

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and Pennsylvania. There were 144 asbestos cases pending as of May 31, 2012.

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 unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been accrued.

In 2011, Aerojet received a letter demand from AMEC, plc, the successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the business assets of Barnard & Burk, Inc. a former Aerojet subsidiary, for Aerojet to assume the defense of twenty-one asbestos cases pending in Louisiana and reimbursement of over $1.0 million in past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that Aerojet retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard & Burk assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser thereof. Aerojet has requested information from AMEC pertaining to the basis of the demand and discussions are ongoing. Accordingly, no estimate of liability has been accrued for this matter as of May 31, 2012.

Subpoena Duces Tecum

On September 23, 2010, the Company received a subpoena duces tecum from the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, acting on behalf of the Office of the Inspector General of the DoD, requesting that the Company produce a variety of documents pertaining to the use of certain cost estimating factors under its contracts with the DoD. The investigation is progressing and no financial demand has been made; accordingly, the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate what the outcome of this civil investigation will be or the impact, if any, the investigation may have on the Company’s operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been accrued for at May 31, 2012. The Company has and continues to cooperate fully with the investigation and is responding to the subpoena.

Snappon SA Wrongful Discharge Claims

In November 2003, the Company announced the closing of a manufacturing facility in Chartres, France owned by Snappon SA, a subsidiary of the Company, previously involved in the automotive business. In accordance with French law, Snappon SA negotiated with the local workers’ council regarding the implementation of a social plan for the employees. Following the implementation of the social plan, approximately 188 of the 249 former Snappon employees sued Snappon SA in the Chartres Labour Court alleging wrongful discharge. The claims were heard in two groups. On February 19, 2009, the Versailles Court of Appeal issued a decision in favor of Group 2 plaintiffs and based on this, the Court awarded €1.9 million plus interest. On April 7, 2009, the Versailles Court of Appeal issued a decision in favor of Group 1 plaintiffs and based on this, the Court awarded €1.0 million plus interest. During the second quarter of fiscal 2009, Snappon SA filed for declaration of suspensions of payments with the clerk’s office of the Paris Commercial Court, and the claims will likely be discharged through those proceedings. During fiscal 2009, the Company accrued a loss contingency of €2.9 million plus interest for this matter.

b. Environmental Matters

The Company is involved in over forty environmental matters under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (“RCRA”), and other federal, state, local, and foreign 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 many 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 fifteen 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 May 31, 2012, the aggregate range of these anticipated environmental costs was $184.9 million to $329.3 million and the accrued amount was $184.9 million. See Note 7(c) for a summary of the environmental reserve activity for the first half of fiscal 2012. Of these accrued liabilities, approximately 96% relates to the Company’s U.S. government contracting business and a portion of this liability is recoverable through the Company’s overhead rates subject to the Global Settlement and Northrop Agreement allocations. The two significant environmental sites are discussed below. The balance of the accrued liabilities relates 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, among other things, to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) 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 (“GETs”) 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 (“TCE”), perchlorate, and n-nitrosodimethylamine (“NDMA”). The PCD has been revised several times, most recently in 2002. The 2002 PCD revision (a) separated the Sacramento site into multiple operable units to allow quicker implementation of remedy 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’s Sacramento remediation activities are fully funded; and (c) removed approximately 2,600 acres of non-contaminated land from the U.S. EPA superfund designation.

Aerojet is involved in various stages of soil and groundwater investigation, remedy selection, design, and remedy construction associated with the operable units. In 2002, the U.S. EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (“UAO”) requiring Aerojet to implement the U.S. EPA-approved remedial action in the Western Groundwater Operable Unit. An identical order was issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley (“Central Valley RWQCB”). On July 7, 2011, EPA issued Aerojet its Approval of Remedial Action Construction Completion Report for Western Groundwater Operable Unit and its Determination of Remedy as Operational and Functional. On September 20, 2011, the EPA issued two UAOs to Aerojet to complete a remedial design and implement remedial action for the Perimeter Groundwater Operable Unit. One UAO addresses groundwater and the other addresses soils within the Perimeter Groundwater Operable Unit. Issuance of the UAOs is the next step in the Superfund process for the Perimeter Groundwater Operable Unit. Aerojet submitted a final Remedial Investigation Report for the Boundary Operable Unit in 2010 and the final Feasibility Study for the Boundary Operable Unit in 2011. The remaining operable units are under various stages of investigation.

The entire southern portion of the site known as Rio Del Oro was under state orders issued in the 1990s from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) to investigate and remediate environmental contamination in the soils and the Central Valley RWQCB to investigate and remediate groundwater environmental contamination. On March 14, 2008, the DTSC released all but approximately 400 acres of the Rio Del Oro property from DTSC’s environmental orders regarding soil contamination. Aerojet expects the approximately 400 acres of Rio Del Oro property that remain subject to the DTSC orders to be released once the soil remediation has been completed. The Rio Del Oro property remains subject to the Central Valley RWQCB’s orders to investigate and remediate groundwater environmental contamination emanating offsite from such property. Pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into in 2009, Aerojet and Boeing have defined responsibilities with respect to future costs and environmental projects relating to this property.

As of May 31, 2012, the estimated range of anticipated costs discussed above for the Sacramento, California site was $132.5 million to $222.5 million and the accrued amount was $132.5 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable through the Company’s overhead rates subject to the Global Settlement and Northrop Agreement allocations. Recoverable estimates for this matter are included as a component of the Company’s estimated recoverable amounts from the U.S. Government and Northrop.

Baldwin Park Operable Unit (“BPOU”)

As a result of its former Azusa, California operations, in 1994 Aerojet was named a PRP by the EPA in the area of the San Gabriel Valley Basin superfund site known as the BPOU. Between 1995 and 1997, the EPA issued Special Notice Letters to Aerojet and eighteen other companies requesting that they implement a groundwater remedy. On June 30, 2000, the EPA issued a UAO ordering the PRPs to implement a remedy consistent with the 1994 record of decision. Aerojet, along with seven other PRPs (“the Cooperating Respondents”) signed a Project Agreement in late March 2002 with the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, and five water companies. The Project Agreement, which has a term of fifteen years, became effective May 9, 2002 and will terminate in May 2017. It is uncertain as to what remedial actions will be required beyond 2017. However, the Project Agreement stipulates that the Parties agree to negotiate in good faith in an effort to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of an extension of the term in the event that a Final Record of Decision anticipates, or any of the parties desire, the continued operation of all or a substantial portion of the project facilities. Pursuant to the Project Agreement, the Cooperating Respondents fund through an escrow account: the capital, operational, maintenance, and administrative costs of certain treatment and water distribution facilities to be owned and operated by the water companies. There are also provisions in the Project Agreement for maintaining financial assurance.

Aerojet and the other Cooperating Respondents entered into an interim allocation agreement that establishes the interim payment obligations of the Cooperating Respondents for the costs incurred pursuant to the Project Agreement. Under the interim allocation, Aerojet is responsible for approximately two-thirds of all project costs, including government oversight costs. All project costs are subject to reallocation among the Cooperating Respondents. Since entering into the agreement, two of the original cooperating respondents, Huffy Corporation (“Huffy”) and Fairchild Corporation (“Fairchild”), have filed for bankruptcy. Aerojet’s interim allocation was unaffected by the Huffy bankruptcy. With respect to Fairchild, Aerojet and the other Cooperating Respondents have had to make up the share that Fairchild had been paying but which Fairchild is no longer paying and have done so based upon a pro rata share of Fairchild’s financial obligations. Prior to filing for bankruptcy, Fairchild filed suit against the other Cooperating Respondents seeking recovery of amounts previously paid of approximately $2.6 million, but there has been little action in that litigation to date. The interim allocation agreement expired, but all solvent Cooperating Respondents have continued to pay in accordance with their interim allocations.

On June 24, 2010, Aerojet filed a complaint against Chubb Custom Insurance Company in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Aerojet-General Corporation v. Chubb Custom Insurance Company Case No. BC440284, seeking declaratory relief and damages regarding Chubb’s failure to pay certain project modification costs and failure to issue an endorsement to add other water sources that may require treatment as required under insurance policies issued to Aerojet and the other Cooperating Respondents. Aerojet agreed to dismiss the case without prejudice and settlement negotiations are ongoing.

As part of Aerojet’s sale of its Electronics and Information Systems (“EIS”) business to Northrop in October 2001, the EPA approved a Prospective Purchaser Agreement with Northrop to absolve it of pre-closing liability for contamination caused by the Azusa, California operations, which liability remains with Aerojet. As part of that agreement, the Company agreed to provide a $25 million guarantee of Aerojet’s obligations under the Project Agreement.

As of May 31, 2012, the estimated range of anticipated costs through the term of the agreement for the BPOU site was $37.7 million to $75.1 million and the accrued amount was $37.7 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable through the Company’s overhead rates subject to the Global Settlement and Northrop Agreement allocations. Recoverable estimates for this matter are included as a component of the Company’s estimated recoverable amounts from the U.S. Government and Northrop.

Toledo, Ohio Site

The Company previously manufactured products for the automotive industry at a Toledo, Ohio site, which was adjacent to the Ottawa River. This facility was divested in 1990 and the Company indemnified the buyer for claims and liabilities arising out of certain pre-divestiture environmental matters. In August 2007, the Company, along with numerous other companies, received from the United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service a notice of a Natural Resource Damage (“NRD”) Assessment Plan for the Ottawa River and Northern Maumee Bay. A group of PRPs, including the Company, was formed to respond to the NRD assessment and to pursue funding from the Great Lakes Legacy Act for primary restoration. The restoration project performed by the group consisted of river dredging and land-filling river sediments with a total project cost in the range of approximately $47 to $49 million, one half of which was funded through the Great Lakes Legacy Act and the net project costs to the PRP group was estimated at $23.5 to $24.5 million. The dredging of the river that began in December 2009 has been completed. In February 2011, the parties reached an agreement on allocation. As of May 31, 2012, the estimated range of the Company’s share of anticipated costs for the NRD matter was $0.0 million to $0.4 million. None of the expenditures related to this matter are recoverable. Still unresolved at this time is the actual NRD Assessment itself. It is not possible to predict the outcome, timing, or the financial impact of these types of assessments, which are typically long processes lasting several years.

In 2008, Textileather, the current owner of the former Toledo, Ohio site, filed a lawsuit against the Company claiming, among other things, that the Company failed to indemnify and defend Textileather for certain contractual environmental obligations. A second suit related to past and future RCRA, closure costs was filed in late 2009. On May 5, 2010, the District Court granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment, thereby dismissing the claims in the initial action. Textileather has appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal. Briefs were filed and oral arguments were heard on March 2, 2012. The Court has not yet rendered a decision. There are no District Court ordered dates in the second Textileather suit, but the parties are conducting informal discovery. As of May 31, 2012, the estimated anticipated costs and accrued amount for the Textileather matter was $2.1 million which is included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. None of the expenditures related to this matter are recoverable.

c. Environmental Reserves and Estimated Recoveries

Environmental Reserves

The Company reviews on a quarterly basis estimated future remediation costs that could be incurred over the contractual term or next fifteen years of the expected remediation. The Company 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. As the period for which estimated environmental remediation costs increases, the reliability of such estimates decrease. 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, the time required to design, construct, and implement the remedy.

A summary of the Company’s environmental reserve activity is shown below:

	Aerojet - Sacramento			Aerojet - BPOU			Other Aerojet Sites			Total Aerojet			Other			Total Environmental Reserve
	(In millions)
November 30, 2011	$	130.7		$	38.6		$	12.1		$	181.4		$	9.2		$	190.6
Additions		7.2			1.2			(0.3	)		8.1			(0.3	)		7.8
Expenditures		(5.4	)		(2.1	)		(3.7	)		(11.2	)		(2.3	)		(13.5	)
May 31, 2012	$	132.5		$	37.7		$	8.1		$	178.3		$	6.6		$	184.9

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.

As part of the acquisition of the Atlantic Research Corporation (“ARC”) propulsion business, Aerojet entered into an agreement with ARC pursuant to which Aerojet is responsible for up to $20.0 million of costs (“Pre-Close Environmental Costs”) associated with environmental issues that arose prior to Aerojet’s acquisition of the ARC propulsion business. Pursuant to a separate agreement with the U.S. government which was entered into prior to the completion of the ARC acquisition, these costs are recovered through the establishment of prices for Aerojet’s products and services sold to the U.S. government. A summary of the Pre-Close Environmental Costs is shown below (in millions):

Pre-Close Environmental Costs	$	20.0
Amount spent through May 31, 2012		(12.7	)
Amount included as a component of reserves for environmental remediation costs in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of May 31, 2012		(2.1	)
Remaining Pre-Close Environmental Costs	$	5.2

Estimated Recoveries

On January 12, 1999, Aerojet and the U.S. government implemented the October 1997 Agreement in Principle (“Global Settlement”) resolving certain prior environmental and facility disagreements, with retroactive effect to December 1, 1998. Under the Global Settlement, Aerojet and the U.S. government resolved disagreements about an appropriate cost-sharing ratio with respect to the clean-up costs of the environmental contamination at the Sacramento and the former Azusa sites. The Global Settlement cost-sharing ratio does not have a defined term over which costs will be recovered. Additionally, in conjunction with the sale of the EIS business in 2001, Aerojet entered into an agreement with Northrop (the “Northrop Agreement”) whereby Aerojet is reimbursed by Northrop for a portion of environmental expenditures eligible for recovery under the Global Settlement, subject to annual and cumulative limitations. The current annual billing limitation to Northrop is $6.0 million.

Pursuant to the Global Settlement covering environmental costs associated with Aerojet’s Sacramento site and its former Azusa site, prior to the third quarter of fiscal 2010, approximately 12% of such costs related to the Sacramento site and former Azusa site were charged to the consolidated statements of operations. Subsequent to the third quarter of fiscal 2010, because the Company reached the reimbursement ceiling under the Northrop Agreement, approximately 37% of such costs are expensed to the consolidated statements of operations.

Allowable environmental costs are charged to the Company’s contracts as the costs are incurred. Aerojet’s mix of contracts can affect the actual reimbursement made by the U.S. government. Because these costs are recovered through forward-pricing arrangements, the ability of Aerojet to continue recovering these costs from the U.S. government depends on Aerojet’s sustained business volume under U.S. government contracts and programs and the relative size of Aerojet’s commercial business. Annually, the Company evaluates Aerojet’s forecasted business volume under U.S. government contracts and programs and the relative size of Aerojet’s commercial business as part of its long-term business review.

Pursuant to the Northrop Agreement, environmental expenditures to be reimbursed are subject to annual limitations and the total reimbursements are limited to a ceiling of $189.7 million. A summary of the Northrop Agreement activity is shown below (in millions):

Total reimbursable costs under the Northrop Agreement	$	189.7
Amount reimbursed to the Company through May 31, 2012		(90.7	)
Potential future cost reimbursements available (1)		99.0
Long-term receivable from Northrop in excess of the annual limitation included in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of May 31, 2012		(66.8	)
Amounts recoverable from Northrop in future periods included as a component of recoverable from the U.S. government and other third parties for environmental remediation costs in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of May 31, 2012		(32.2	)
Potential future recoverable amounts available under the Northrop Agreement	$	—

(1) Includes the short-term receivable from Northrop of $6.0 million as of May 31, 2012.

The Company’s applicable cost estimates reached the cumulative limitation under the Northrop Agreement during the third quarter of fiscal 2010. The Company has accumulated $12.3 million of environmental costs above the cumulative limitation under the Northrop Agreement through May 31, 2012. Accordingly, subsequent to the third quarter of fiscal 2010, the Company has incurred a higher percentage of expense related to additions to the Sacramento site and BPOU site environmental reserve until an arrangement is reached with the U.S. government. While the Company is currently seeking an arrangement with the U.S. government to recover environmental expenditures in excess of the reimbursement ceiling identified in the Northrop Agreement, 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 to unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations

The expenses associated with adjustments to the environmental reserves are recorded as a component of other expense, net in the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations. Summarized financial information for the impact of environmental reserves and recoveries to the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations is set forth below:

	Estimated Recoverable Amounts Under U.S. Government Contracts		Charge to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations		Total Environmental Reserve Additions
	(In millions)
Three months ended May 31, 2012	$	4.4	$	2.0	$	6.4
Three months ended May 31, 2011		3.0		0.9		3.9
Six months ended May 31, 2012		5.3		2.5		7.8
Six months ended May 31, 2011		7.0		2.0		9.0