Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Dec. 26, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legacy Matters Related to Former Management In recent years, the Company has settled several lawsuits involving disputes with former management. With respect to Mr. Kozlowski, the Company's former chief executive officer, in the first quarter of fiscal 2014, the parties signed an agreement resolving all outstanding disputes, with Mr. Kozlowski agreeing to release the Company from any claims to monetary amounts related to compensation, retention or other arrangements. As a result, in the first quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company reversed a non-cash net liability of approximately $92 million which was recorded in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the amounts allegedly due to him. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Tyco will be entitled to a portion of the proceeds, if any, from the future sale of certain assets owned by Mr. Kozlowski, the timing and amount of which is uncertain at this time. With respect to Mr. Swartz, the Company's former chief financial officer, in November 2014, the parties reached a definitive agreement to resolve all outstanding disputes, with Mr. Swartz agreeing to release the Company from any claims to monetary amounts related to compensation, retention or other arrangements alleged to have existed between him and the Company. In the first quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company also received approximately $12 million in cash from Mr. Swartz, $5 million of which will be shared pursuant to the terms of the class action lawsuit, resulting in a net recovery of $7 million which was recorded in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. The cash received has been classified as restricted. Environmental Matters Tyco is involved in various stages of investigation and cleanup related to environmental remediation matters at a number of sites. The ultimate cost of site cleanup is difficult to predict given the uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the interpretation of applicable laws and regulations and alternative cleanup methods. As of December 26, 2014, Tyco concluded that it was probable that it would incur remedial costs in the range of approximately $30 million to $73 million. As of December 26, 2014, Tyco concluded that the best estimate within this range is approximately $34 million, of which $15 million is included in Accrued and other current liabilities and $19 million is included in Other liabilities in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet. The majority of the liabilities described above relate to ongoing remediation efforts at a facility in the Company's Global Products segment located in Marinette, Wisconsin, which the Company acquired in 1990 in connection with its acquisition of, among other things, the Ansul product line. Prior to Tyco's acquisition, Ansul manufactured arsenic-based agricultural herbicides at the Marinette facility, which resulted in significant arsenic contamination of soil and groundwater on the Marinette site and in parts of the adjoining Menominee River. Ansul has been engaged in ongoing remediation efforts at the Marinette site since 1990, and in February 2009 entered into an Administrative Consent Order (the "Consent Order") with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address the presence of arsenic at the Marinette site. Under this agreement, Ansul's principal obligations are to contain the arsenic contamination on the site, pump and treat on-site groundwater, dredge, treat and properly dispose of contaminated sediments in the adjoining river areas, and monitor contamination levels on an ongoing basis. Activities completed under the Consent Order since 2009 include the installation of a subsurface barrier wall around the facility to contain contaminated groundwater, the installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system and the dredging and offsite disposal of treated river sediment. As of December 26, 2014, the Company concluded that its remaining remediation and monitoring costs related to the Marinette facility were in the range of approximately $20 million to $47 million. The Company's best estimate within that range is approximately $23 million, of which $11 million is included in Accrued and other current liabilities and $12 million is included in Other liabilities in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet. Although the Company has recorded its best estimate of the costs that it will incur to remediate and monitor the arsenic contamination at the Marinette facility, it is possible that technological, regulatory or enforcement developments, the results of environmental studies or other factors could change the Company's expectations with respect to future charges and cash outlays, and such changes could be material to the Company's future results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Asbestos Matters The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including Yarway Corporation (“Yarway”) and Grinnell LLC (“Grinnell”), along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. Over 90% of cases pending against affiliates of the Company have been filed against Yarway or Grinnell, and have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. Claims filed against Yarway derive from Yarway’s purported use of asbestos-containing gaskets and packing in the sale or distribution of steam valves and traps and from its alleged manufacture of asbestos-containing expansion joint packing. Yarway’s alleged manufacture, distribution and/or sale of asbestos-containing materials ceased by 1988, and Yarway ceased substantially all of its manufacturing, distribution and sales operations in 2003. Claims filed against Grinnell typically allege that it manufactured, sold or distributed valves, gaskets, piping and sprinkler systems containing asbestos. As of December 26, 2014, the Company has determined that there were approximately 5,700 claims pending against it, which includes approximately 3,200 claims pending against Yarway. This amount reflects the Company's current estimate of the number of viable claims made against it and includes adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identify incorrect defendants, are duplicative of other actions or for which the Company is indemnified by third parties. Additionally, as a result of the Yarway bankruptcy filing described below, claims against Yarway have been stayed since April 2013. As of December 26, 2014, the Company's estimated net liability, including Yarway, recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet is $605 million. The net liability is comprised of a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $850 million, of which $353 million is recorded in Accrued and other current liabilities, and $497 million is recorded in Other liabilities. The Company also maintains separate insurance recovery related assets of $245 million, of which $22 million is recorded in Prepaid expenses and other current assets, and $223 million is recorded in Other assets. Insurance recovery related assets include $22 million of cash which has been designated as restricted. The Company believes that its asbestos related liabilities and insurance related assets as of December 26, 2014 are appropriate. Similarly, as of September 26, 2014, the Company's estimated net liability, including Yarway, of $608 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $853 million, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of $245 million. Yarway As previously disclosed, on April 22, 2013 Yarway filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (“Chapter 11”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (“Bankruptcy Court”). As a result of this filing, the continuation or commencement of asbestos-related litigation against Yarway has been enjoined by the automatic stay imposed by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Yarway's goal has been to negotiate, obtain approval of, and consummate a plan of reorganization that establishes a trust to fairly and equitably value and pay current and future Yarway asbestos claims, and that, in exchange for funding of the trust by the Company and/or its subsidiaries, provides permanent injunctive relief protecting the Company, each of its current and former affiliates and various other parties (the “Company Protected Parties”) from any further asbestos claims based on products manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by Yarway. On October 9, 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle with Yarway, the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants (“ACC”) appointed in the Yarway Chapter 11 case as the representative of current Yarway asbestos claimants, and the Future Claimants Representative (“FCR”) appointed in the Yarway Chapter 11 case as the representative of future Yarway asbestos claimants, to fund a section 524(g) trust for the resolution and payment of current and future Yarway asbestos claims. The agreement in principle, which will be implemented through a Chapter 11 plan for Yarway, will resolve the potential liability of the Company Protected Parties for pending and future derivative personal injury claims related to exposure to asbestos-containing products that were allegedly manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by Yarway (“Yarway Asbestos Claims”). Under the Chapter 11 plan, an asbestos settlement trust (the “Yarway Trust”) that conforms to the provisions of Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code will be established and, on the effective date of the Chapter 11 plan, the Company and Yarway will contribute to the Yarway Trust a total of $325 million in cash (“Settlement Consideration”), which includes approximately $100 million relating to the settlement of intercompany amounts allegedly due to Yarway. In exchange for the Settlement Consideration, each of the Company Protected Parties will receive the benefit of a release from Yarway and an injunction under section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code permanently enjoining the assertion of Yarway Asbestos Claims against those Parties. The agreement in principle is subject, among other things, to the negotiation and filing of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization for Yarway incorporating the terms of such agreement (the “Plan”), acceptance of the Plan by at least 75% of Yarway’s current asbestos claimants voting on such Plan, confirmation of the Plan by the Bankruptcy Court and approval of the injunction in favor of the Company Protected Parties by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“District Court”). On the effective date of the Plan, which is anticipated to occur in the second half of fiscal 2015, the Company and Yarway will pay the Settlement Consideration and Yarway Asbestos Claims against the Company Protected Parties will be permanently enjoined. Yarway is anticipated to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Yarway Trust and, accordingly, would no longer be owned by or be part of a consolidated group with the Company. Unless extended by a further agreement, the agreement in principle will expire if the order confirming the Plan and implementing the injunction has not been entered or affirmed by the District Court by June 30, 2015, or if the effective date of the Plan has not occurred by September 15, 2016. As a result of the agreement in principle to settle, the Company recorded a charge of $225 million in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations during the fourth fiscal quarter of 2014. As a result of filing the voluntary bankruptcy petition during the third quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company recorded an expected loss upon deconsolidation of $10 million related to the Yarway Chapter 11 filing, which continues to represent the Company’s best estimate of its loss. Other Claims The Company continuously assesses the sufficiency of its estimated liability for pending and future asbestos claims and defense costs. On a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates actual experience regarding asbestos claims filed, settled and dismissed, amounts paid in settlements, and the recoverability of its insurance assets. If and when data from actual experience demonstrate an unfavorable discernible trend, the Company performs a valuation of its asbestos related liabilities and corresponding insurance assets including a comprehensive review of the underlying assumptions. In addition, the Company evaluates its ability to reasonably estimate claim activity beyond its current look-forward period in order to assess whether such period is appropriate. In addition to claims and litigation experience, the Company considers additional qualitative and quantitative factors such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, the Company’s strategy in managing claims and obtaining insurance, including its defense strategy, and health related trends in the overall population of individuals potentially exposed to asbestos. The Company evaluates all of these factors and determines whether a change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future claims and defense costs or insurance assets is warranted. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company concluded that an unfavorable trend had developed in actual claim filing activity compared to projected claim filing activity established during the Company’s most recent valuation. Accordingly, the Company, with the assistance of independent actuarial service providers, performed a revised valuation of its asbestos-related liabilities and corresponding insurance assets. As part of the revised valuation, the Company assessed whether a change in its look-forward period was appropriate, taking into consideration its more extensive history and experience with asbestos-related claims and litigation (including its experience with Yarway), and determined that it was now possible to make a reasonable estimate of the actuarially determined ultimate risk of loss for pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims through 2056. In connection with the revised valuation, the Company considered a recent settlement with one of its insurers calling for the establishment of a qualified settlement fund, and the results of a separate independent actuarial consulting firm report conducted in the fourth quarter to assist the Company in obtaining insurance to fully fund all estimable asbestos-related claims (excluding Yarway claims) incurred through 2056. The independent actuarial service firm calculated a total estimated liability for asbestos-related claims of the Company, which reflects the Company’s best estimate of its ultimate risk of loss to resolve all pending and future claims (excluding Yarway claims) through 2056, which is the Company’s reasonable best estimate of the actuarially determined time period through which asbestos-related claims will be filed against Company affiliates. In conjunction with determining the total estimated liability, the Company retained an independent third party to assist it in valuing its insurance assets responsive to asbestos-related claims, excluding Yarway claims. These insurance assets represent amounts due to the Company for previously settled claims and the probable reimbursements relating to its total liability for pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims and defense costs. In calculating this amount, the Company used the estimated asbestos liability for pending and projected future claims and defense costs described above, and it also considered the amount of insurance available, the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers, resolution of insurance coverage issues, gaps in coverage, allocation methodologies, and the terms of existing settlement agreements with insurance carriers. The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption will impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or assumption predominately influences the determination of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly from actual results. In connection with the foregoing, during the third quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company resolved disputes with certain of its historical insurers and agreed that certain insurance proceeds would be used to establish and fund a qualified settlement fund (“QSF”), within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code, which would be used for the resolution primarily of Grinnell asbestos liabilities of the Company. It is intended that the QSF will receive future insurance payments and proceeds from third party insurers and, in addition, will fund and manage liabilities for certain historical operations of the Company. On January 9, 2015, the Company completed a series of restructuring transactions related to the establishment and funding of a dedicated structure pursuant to which the Company acquired the assets of Grinnell and transferred cash and other assets totaling approximately $278 million (not including $22 million received by the QSF from historic third-party insurers in settlement of coverage disputes) to the structure. As part of the restructuring, subsidiaries in the structure assumed certain liabilities related to historic Grinnell, Scott and Figgie operations, including all historical Grinnell asbestos liabilities, and such subsidiaries purchased additional insurance by, through or from a wholly-owned subsidiary in the structure in order to supplement and enhance existing insurance assets. The structure and the QSF fully fund all historic Grinnell asbestos liabilities and provide for the efficient and streamlined management of claims related thereto. Tax Matters Tyco and its subsidiaries' income tax returns are examined periodically by various tax authorities. In connection with these examinations, tax authorities, including the IRS, have raised issues and proposed tax adjustments, in particular with respect to years preceding the 2007 Separation. The issues and proposed adjustments related to such years are generally subject to the sharing provisions of a tax sharing agreement entered in 2007 with Covidien and TE Connectivity (the "2007 Tax Sharing Agreement") under which Tyco, Covidien and TE Connectivity share 27%, 42% and 31%, respectively, of shared income tax liabilities that arise from adjustments made by tax authorities to Tyco's, Covidien's and TE Connectivity's U.S. and certain non-U.S. income tax returns. The costs and expenses associated with the management of these shared tax liabilities are generally shared equally among the parties. Tyco has previously disclosed that in connection with U.S. federal tax audits, the IRS has raised a number of issues and proposed tax adjustments for periods beginning with the 1997 tax year. Although Tyco has been able to resolve substantially all of the issues and adjustments proposed by the IRS for tax years through 2007, it has not been able to resolve matters related to the treatment of certain intercompany debt transactions during the period. As a result, on June 20, 2013, Tyco received Notices of Deficiency from the IRS asserting that several of Tyco's former U.S. subsidiaries owe additional taxes of $883.3 million plus penalties of $154 million based on audits of the 1997 through 2000 tax years of Tyco and its subsidiaries as they existed at that time. In addition, Tyco received Final Partnership Administrative Adjustments for certain U.S. partnerships owned by former U.S. subsidiaries with respect to which an additional tax deficiency of approximately $30 million is expected to be asserted. These amounts exclude interest and do not reflect the impact on subsequent periods if the IRS position described below is ultimately proved correct. The IRS asserted in the Notices of Deficiency that substantially all of Tyco's intercompany debt originated during the 1997 - 2000 period should not be treated as debt for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and has disallowed interest and related deductions recognized on U.S. income tax returns totaling approximately $2.9 billion. Tyco strongly disagrees with the IRS position and has filed petitions with the U.S. Tax Court contesting the IRS proposed adjustments. A trial date has been set for February 2016. Tyco believes that it has meritorious defenses for its tax filings, that the IRS positions with regard to these matters are inconsistent with the applicable tax laws and existing Treasury regulations, and that the previously reported taxes for the years in question are appropriate. No payments with respect to these matters would be required until the dispute is definitively resolved, which, based on the experience of other companies, could take several years. Tyco believes that its income tax reserves and the liabilities recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheet for the tax sharing agreements continue to be appropriate. However, the ultimate resolution of these matters, and the impact of that resolution, are uncertain and could have a material impact on Tyco's financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In particular, if the IRS is successful in asserting its claim, it would have an adverse impact on interest deductions related to the same intercompany debt in subsequent time periods, totaling approximately $6.6 billion, which is expected to be disallowed by the IRS. See Note 6 for additional information related to income tax matters. Other Matters During the first quarter of fiscal 2014, Tyco settled a tax dispute with its former subsidiary, CIT Group, Inc. ("CIT"). Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Tyco received $60 million during the first quarter of 2014, which was subject to the sharing provisions of the 2007 Tax Sharing Agreement. As a result, the Company recorded a $16 million gain in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations and established payables of $25 million and $19 million due to Covidien and TE Connectivity, respectively, as of December 27, 2013. The Company paid these amounts to Covidien and TE Connectivity during the second fiscal quarter of 2014. SimplexGrinnell LP (“SG”), a subsidiary of the Company in the North America Installation & Services segment, has been named as a defendant in several lawsuits seeking damages for SG’s alleged failure to pay prevailing wages in connection with work performed on state and local municipal projects. In New York, the U.S. District Court had granted SG’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for prevailing wages on testing and inspection work, which was based primarily on a 2009 opinion of the New York Department of Labor (“DOL”) that testing and inspection work would be considered covered by the prevailing wage law only on a prospective basis. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which in turn asked the NY Court of Appeals whether the lower court should have given deference to the DOL’s prospective-only application of law. In October 2014, the NY Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court did not have to give deference to the DOL based on an amicus brief submitted by the DOL in which it stated the Court need not have given it deference. As a result, the Company recorded a $10 million charge in Cost of services in the Consolidated Statement of Operations during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014. During the quarter ended December 26, 2014, the Company recorded an additional charge in Cost of services within the Consolidated Statement of Operations based on a refinement of the underlying data used by the plaintiffs’ experts. Such amount, which reflects the Company’s best estimate of its probable loss related to this matter, is not material to the financial statements. SG also is a defendant in two other lawsuits related to prevailing wages in New Jersey and California. SG has agreed in principle to settle the California lawsuit for approximately $5 million subject to Court approval, which the Company had previously reserved. During the first quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company received and responded to inquiries from the U.S. Department of the Navy regarding the formulation of certain aqueous film forming foam ("AFFF") concentrates. The Company investigated such matters and ceased selling certain AFFF and other foam products pending the outcome of its investigation. During the course of the investigation, three AFFF products were removed from the Navy’s Qualified Products List ("QPL"); one AFFF product remains on the QPL. The Company has shared the results of its investigation with appropriate governmental authorities and is also communicating with the government regarding the re-qualification of these products. The government has confirmed that it considers the Company to be “presently responsible,” and that no suspension or debarment is warranted. At this time, we cannot predict the outcome of these inquiries and whether this will result in further action by the Navy or other governmental authorities, but it is possible that the Company could be required to pay material fines, consent to injunctions on future conduct, or suffer other criminal or civil penalties or adverse impacts, including being subject to lawsuits brought by private litigants, each of which may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to claims and suits, including from time to time, contractual disputes and product and general liability claims, incidental to present and former operations, acquisitions and dispositions. With respect to many of these claims, the Company either self-insures or maintains insurance through third-parties, with varying deductibles. While the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that the resolution of any such proceedings, whether the underlying claims are covered by insurance or not, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows beyond amounts recorded for such matters.

Commitments and Contingencies

Legacy Matters Related to Former Management

In recent years, the Company has settled several lawsuits involving disputes with former management. With respect to Mr. Kozlowski, the Company's former chief executive officer, in the first quarter of fiscal 2014, the parties signed an agreement resolving all outstanding disputes, with Mr. Kozlowski agreeing to release the Company from any claims to monetary amounts related to compensation, retention or other arrangements. As a result, in the first quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company reversed a non-cash net liability of approximately $92 million which was recorded in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the amounts allegedly due to him. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Tyco will be entitled to a portion of the proceeds, if any, from the future sale of certain assets owned by Mr. Kozlowski, the timing and amount of which is uncertain at this time.

With respect to Mr. Swartz, the Company's former chief financial officer, in November 2014, the parties reached a definitive agreement to resolve all outstanding disputes, with Mr. Swartz agreeing to release the Company from any claims to monetary amounts related to compensation, retention or other arrangements alleged to have existed between him and the Company. In the first quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company also received approximately $12 million in cash from Mr. Swartz, $5 million of which will be shared pursuant to the terms of the class action lawsuit, resulting in a net recovery of $7 million which was recorded in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. The cash received has been classified as restricted.

Environmental Matters

Tyco is involved in various stages of investigation and cleanup related to environmental remediation matters at a number of sites. The ultimate cost of site cleanup is difficult to predict given the uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the interpretation of applicable laws and regulations and alternative cleanup methods. As of December 26, 2014, Tyco concluded that it was probable that it would incur remedial costs in the range of approximately $30 million to $73 million. As of December 26, 2014, Tyco concluded that the best estimate within this range is approximately $34 million, of which $15 million is included in Accrued and other current liabilities and $19 million is included in Other liabilities in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet.

The majority of the liabilities described above relate to ongoing remediation efforts at a facility in the Company's Global Products segment located in Marinette, Wisconsin, which the Company acquired in 1990 in connection with its acquisition of, among other things, the Ansul product line. Prior to Tyco's acquisition, Ansul manufactured arsenic-based agricultural herbicides at the Marinette facility, which resulted in significant arsenic contamination of soil and groundwater on the Marinette site and in parts of the adjoining Menominee River. Ansul has been engaged in ongoing remediation efforts at the Marinette site since 1990, and in February 2009 entered into an Administrative Consent Order (the "Consent Order") with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address the presence of arsenic at the Marinette site. Under this agreement, Ansul's principal obligations are to contain the arsenic contamination on the site, pump and treat on-site groundwater, dredge, treat and properly dispose of contaminated sediments in the adjoining river areas, and monitor contamination levels on an ongoing basis. Activities completed under the Consent Order since 2009 include the installation of a subsurface barrier wall around the facility to contain contaminated groundwater, the installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system and the dredging and offsite disposal of treated river sediment. As of December 26, 2014, the Company concluded that its remaining remediation and monitoring costs related to the Marinette facility were in the range of approximately $20 million to $47 million. The Company's best estimate within that range is approximately $23 million, of which $11 million is included in Accrued and other current liabilities and $12 million is included in Other liabilities in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet. Although the Company has recorded its best estimate of the costs that it will incur to remediate and monitor the arsenic contamination at the Marinette facility, it is possible that technological, regulatory or enforcement developments, the results of environmental studies or other factors could change the Company's expectations with respect to future charges and cash outlays, and such changes could be material to the Company's future results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Asbestos Matters

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including Yarway Corporation (“Yarway”) and Grinnell LLC (“Grinnell”), along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. Over 90% of cases pending against affiliates of the Company have been filed against Yarway or Grinnell, and have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. Claims filed against Yarway derive from Yarway’s purported use of asbestos-containing gaskets and packing in the sale or distribution of steam valves and traps and from its alleged manufacture of asbestos-containing expansion joint packing. Yarway’s alleged manufacture, distribution and/or sale of asbestos-containing materials ceased by 1988, and Yarway ceased substantially all of its manufacturing, distribution and sales operations in 2003. Claims filed against Grinnell typically allege that it manufactured, sold or distributed valves, gaskets, piping and sprinkler systems containing asbestos.

As of December 26, 2014, the Company has determined that there were approximately 5,700 claims pending against it, which includes approximately 3,200 claims pending against Yarway. This amount reflects the Company's current estimate of the number of viable claims made against it and includes adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identify incorrect defendants, are duplicative of other actions or for which the Company is indemnified by third parties. Additionally, as a result of the Yarway bankruptcy filing described below, claims against Yarway have been stayed since April 2013.

As of December 26, 2014, the Company's estimated net liability, including Yarway, recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet is $605 million. The net liability is comprised of a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $850 million, of which $353 million is recorded in Accrued and other current liabilities, and $497 million is recorded in Other liabilities. The Company also maintains separate insurance recovery related assets of $245 million, of which $22 million is recorded in Prepaid expenses and other current assets, and $223 million is recorded in Other assets. Insurance recovery related assets include $22 million of cash which has been designated as restricted. The Company believes that its asbestos related liabilities and insurance related assets as of December 26, 2014 are appropriate. Similarly, as of September 26, 2014, the Company's estimated net liability, including Yarway, of $608 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $853 million, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of $245 million.

Yarway

As previously disclosed, on April 22, 2013 Yarway filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (“Chapter 11”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (“Bankruptcy Court”). As a result of this filing, the continuation or commencement of asbestos-related litigation against Yarway has been enjoined by the automatic stay imposed by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Yarway's goal has been to negotiate, obtain approval of, and consummate a plan of reorganization that establishes a trust to fairly and equitably value and pay current and future Yarway asbestos claims, and that, in exchange for funding of the trust by the Company and/or its subsidiaries, provides permanent injunctive relief protecting the Company, each of its current and former affiliates and various other parties (the “Company Protected Parties”) from any further asbestos claims based on products manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by Yarway. On October 9, 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle with Yarway, the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants (“ACC”) appointed in the Yarway Chapter 11 case as the representative of current Yarway asbestos claimants, and the Future Claimants Representative (“FCR”) appointed in the Yarway Chapter 11 case as the representative of future Yarway asbestos claimants, to fund a section 524(g) trust for the resolution and payment of current and future Yarway asbestos claims. The agreement in principle, which will be implemented through a Chapter 11 plan for Yarway, will resolve the potential liability of the Company Protected Parties for pending and future derivative personal injury claims related to exposure to asbestos-containing products that were allegedly manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by Yarway (“Yarway Asbestos Claims”). Under the Chapter 11 plan, an asbestos settlement trust (the “Yarway Trust”) that conforms to the provisions of Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code will be established and, on the effective date of the Chapter 11 plan, the Company and Yarway will contribute to the Yarway Trust a total of $325 million in cash (“Settlement Consideration”), which includes approximately $100 million relating to the settlement of intercompany amounts allegedly due to Yarway. In exchange for the Settlement Consideration, each of the Company Protected Parties will receive the benefit of a release from Yarway and an injunction under section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code permanently enjoining the assertion of Yarway Asbestos Claims against those Parties. The agreement in principle is subject, among other things, to the negotiation and filing of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization for Yarway incorporating the terms of such agreement (the “Plan”), acceptance of the Plan by at least 75% of Yarway’s current asbestos claimants voting on such Plan, confirmation of the Plan by the Bankruptcy Court and approval of the injunction in favor of the Company Protected Parties by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“District Court”). On the effective date of the Plan, which is anticipated to occur in the second half of fiscal 2015, the Company and Yarway will pay the Settlement Consideration and Yarway Asbestos Claims against the Company Protected Parties will be permanently enjoined. Yarway is anticipated to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Yarway Trust and, accordingly, would no longer be owned by or be part of a consolidated group with the Company. Unless extended by a further agreement, the agreement in principle will expire if the order confirming the Plan and implementing the injunction has not been entered or affirmed by the District Court by June 30, 2015, or if the effective date of the Plan has not occurred by September 15, 2016. As a result of the agreement in principle to settle, the Company recorded a charge of $225 million in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations during the fourth fiscal quarter of 2014.

As a result of filing the voluntary bankruptcy petition during the third quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company recorded an expected loss upon deconsolidation of $10 million related to the Yarway Chapter 11 filing, which continues to represent the Company’s best estimate of its loss.

Other Claims

The Company continuously assesses the sufficiency of its estimated liability for pending and future asbestos claims and defense costs. On a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates actual experience regarding asbestos claims filed, settled and dismissed, amounts paid in settlements, and the recoverability of its insurance assets. If and when data from actual experience demonstrate an unfavorable discernible trend, the Company performs a valuation of its asbestos related liabilities and corresponding insurance assets including a comprehensive review of the underlying assumptions. In addition, the Company evaluates its ability to reasonably estimate claim activity beyond its current look-forward period in order to assess whether such period is appropriate. In addition to claims and litigation experience, the Company considers additional qualitative and quantitative factors such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, the Company’s strategy in managing claims and obtaining insurance, including its defense strategy, and health related trends in the overall population of individuals potentially exposed to asbestos. The Company evaluates all of these factors and determines whether a change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future claims and defense costs or insurance assets is warranted.

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company concluded that an unfavorable trend had developed in actual claim filing activity compared to projected claim filing activity established during the Company’s most recent valuation. Accordingly, the Company, with the assistance of independent actuarial service providers, performed a revised valuation of its asbestos-related liabilities and corresponding insurance assets. As part of the revised valuation, the Company assessed whether a change in its look-forward period was appropriate, taking into consideration its more extensive history and experience with asbestos-related claims and litigation (including its experience with Yarway), and determined that it was now possible to make a reasonable estimate of the actuarially determined ultimate risk of loss for pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims through 2056. In connection with the revised valuation, the Company considered a recent settlement with one of its insurers calling for the establishment of a qualified settlement fund, and the results of a separate independent actuarial consulting firm report conducted in the fourth quarter to assist the Company in obtaining insurance to fully fund all estimable asbestos-related claims (excluding Yarway claims) incurred through 2056.

The independent actuarial service firm calculated a total estimated liability for asbestos-related claims of the Company, which reflects the Company’s best estimate of its ultimate risk of loss to resolve all pending and future claims (excluding Yarway claims) through 2056, which is the Company’s reasonable best estimate of the actuarially determined time period through which asbestos-related claims will be filed against Company affiliates.

In conjunction with determining the total estimated liability, the Company retained an independent third party to assist it in valuing its insurance assets responsive to asbestos-related claims, excluding Yarway claims. These insurance assets represent amounts due to the Company for previously settled claims and the probable reimbursements relating to its total liability for pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims and defense costs. In calculating this amount, the Company used the estimated asbestos liability for pending and projected future claims and defense costs described above, and it also considered the amount of insurance available, the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers, resolution of insurance coverage issues, gaps in coverage, allocation methodologies, and the terms of existing settlement agreements with insurance carriers.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption will impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or assumption predominately influences the determination of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly from actual results.

In connection with the foregoing, during the third quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company resolved disputes with certain of its historical insurers and agreed that certain insurance proceeds would be used to establish and fund a qualified settlement fund (“QSF”), within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code, which would be used for the resolution primarily of Grinnell asbestos liabilities of the Company. It is intended that the QSF will receive future insurance payments and proceeds from third party insurers and, in addition, will fund and manage liabilities for certain historical operations of the Company. On January 9, 2015, the Company completed a series of restructuring transactions related to the establishment and funding of a dedicated structure pursuant to which the Company acquired the assets of Grinnell and transferred cash and other assets totaling approximately $278 million (not including $22 million received by the QSF from historic third-party insurers in settlement of coverage disputes) to the structure. As part of the restructuring, subsidiaries in the structure assumed certain liabilities related to historic Grinnell, Scott and Figgie operations, including all historical Grinnell asbestos liabilities, and such subsidiaries purchased additional insurance by, through or from a wholly-owned subsidiary in the structure in order to supplement and enhance existing insurance assets. The structure and the QSF fully fund all historic Grinnell asbestos liabilities and provide for the efficient and streamlined management of claims related thereto.

Tax Matters

Tyco and its subsidiaries' income tax returns are examined periodically by various tax authorities. In connection with these examinations, tax authorities, including the IRS, have raised issues and proposed tax adjustments, in particular with respect to years preceding the 2007 Separation. The issues and proposed adjustments related to such years are generally subject to the sharing provisions of a tax sharing agreement entered in 2007 with Covidien and TE Connectivity (the "2007 Tax Sharing Agreement") under which Tyco, Covidien and TE Connectivity share 27%, 42% and 31%, respectively, of shared income tax liabilities that arise from adjustments made by tax authorities to Tyco's, Covidien's and TE Connectivity's U.S. and certain non-U.S. income tax returns. The costs and expenses associated with the management of these shared tax liabilities are generally shared equally among the parties. Tyco has previously disclosed that in connection with U.S. federal tax audits, the IRS has raised a number of issues and proposed tax adjustments for periods beginning with the 1997 tax year. Although Tyco has been able to resolve substantially all of the issues and adjustments proposed by the IRS for tax years through 2007, it has not been able to resolve matters related to the treatment of certain intercompany debt transactions during the period. As a result, on June 20, 2013, Tyco received Notices of Deficiency from the IRS asserting that several of Tyco's former U.S. subsidiaries owe additional taxes of $883.3 million plus penalties of $154 million based on audits of the 1997 through 2000 tax years of Tyco and its subsidiaries as they existed at that time. In addition, Tyco received Final Partnership Administrative Adjustments for certain U.S. partnerships owned by former U.S. subsidiaries with respect to which an additional tax deficiency of approximately $30 million is expected to be asserted. These amounts exclude interest and do not reflect the impact on subsequent periods if the IRS position described below is ultimately proved correct.

The IRS asserted in the Notices of Deficiency that substantially all of Tyco's intercompany debt originated during the 1997 - 2000 period should not be treated as debt for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and has disallowed interest and related deductions recognized on U.S. income tax returns totaling approximately $2.9 billion. Tyco strongly disagrees with the IRS position and has filed petitions with the U.S. Tax Court contesting the IRS proposed adjustments. A trial date has been set for February 2016. Tyco believes that it has meritorious defenses for its tax filings, that the IRS positions with regard to these matters are inconsistent with the applicable tax laws and existing Treasury regulations, and that the previously reported taxes for the years in question are appropriate.

No payments with respect to these matters would be required until the dispute is definitively resolved, which, based on the experience of other companies, could take several years. Tyco believes that its income tax reserves and the liabilities recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheet for the tax sharing agreements continue to be appropriate. However, the ultimate resolution of these matters, and the impact of that resolution, are uncertain and could have a material impact on Tyco's financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In particular, if the IRS is successful in asserting its claim, it would have an adverse impact on interest deductions related to the same intercompany debt in subsequent time periods, totaling approximately $6.6 billion, which is expected to be disallowed by the IRS.

See Note 6 for additional information related to income tax matters.

Other Matters

During the first quarter of fiscal 2014, Tyco settled a tax dispute with its former subsidiary, CIT Group, Inc. ("CIT"). Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Tyco received $60 million during the first quarter of 2014, which was subject to the sharing provisions of the 2007 Tax Sharing Agreement. As a result, the Company recorded a $16 million gain in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations and established payables of $25 million and $19 million due to Covidien and TE Connectivity, respectively, as of December 27, 2013. The Company paid these amounts to Covidien and TE Connectivity during the second fiscal quarter of 2014.

SimplexGrinnell LP (“SG”), a subsidiary of the Company in the North America Installation & Services segment, has been named as a defendant in several lawsuits seeking damages for SG’s alleged failure to pay prevailing wages in connection with work performed on state and local municipal projects. In New York, the U.S. District Court had granted SG’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for prevailing wages on testing and inspection work, which was based primarily on a 2009 opinion of the New York Department of Labor (“DOL”) that testing and inspection work would be considered covered by the prevailing wage law only on a prospective basis. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which in turn asked the NY Court of Appeals whether the lower court should have given deference to the DOL’s prospective-only application of law. In October 2014, the NY Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court did not have to give deference to the DOL based on an amicus brief submitted by the DOL in which it stated the Court need not have given it deference. As a result, the Company recorded a $10 million charge in Cost of services in the Consolidated Statement of Operations during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014. During the quarter ended December 26, 2014, the Company recorded an additional charge in Cost of services within the Consolidated Statement of Operations based on a refinement of the underlying data used by the plaintiffs’ experts. Such amount, which reflects the Company’s best estimate of its probable loss related to this matter, is not material to the financial statements. SG also is a defendant in two other lawsuits related to prevailing wages in New Jersey and California. SG has agreed in principle to settle the California lawsuit for approximately $5 million subject to Court approval, which the Company had previously reserved.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company received and responded to inquiries from the U.S. Department of the Navy regarding the formulation of certain aqueous film forming foam ("AFFF") concentrates. The Company investigated such matters and ceased selling certain AFFF and other foam products pending the outcome of its investigation. During the course of the investigation, three AFFF products were removed from the Navy’s Qualified Products List ("QPL"); one AFFF product remains on the QPL. The Company has shared the results of its investigation with appropriate governmental authorities and is also communicating with the government regarding the re-qualification of these products. The government has confirmed that it considers the Company to be “presently responsible,” and that no suspension or debarment is warranted. At this time, we cannot predict the outcome of these inquiries and whether this will result in further action by the Navy or other governmental authorities, but it is possible that the Company could be required to pay material fines, consent to injunctions on future conduct, or suffer other criminal or civil penalties or adverse impacts, including being subject to lawsuits brought by private litigants, each of which may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to claims and suits, including from time to time, contractual disputes and product and general liability claims, incidental to present and former operations, acquisitions and dispositions. With respect to many of these claims, the Company either self-insures or maintains insurance through third-parties, with varying deductibles. While the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that the resolution of any such proceedings, whether the underlying claims are covered by insurance or not, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows beyond amounts recorded for such matters.