Legal Proceedings and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 26, 2011

Legal Proceedings and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings and Contingencies

NOTE 8 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES

We are a party to or have property subject to litigation and other proceedings, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment. We believe the probability is remote that the outcome of each of these matters, including the legal proceedings discussed below, will have a material adverse effect on the Corporation as a whole, notwithstanding that the unfavorable resolution of any matter may have a material effect on our net earnings in any particular quarter. Among the factors that we consider in this assessment are the nature of existing legal proceedings and claims, the asserted or possible damages or loss contingency (if estimable), the progress of the case, existing law and precedent, the opinions or views of legal counsel and other advisers, our experience in similar cases and the experience of other companies, the facts available to us at the time of assessment, and how we intend to respond to the proceeding or claim. Our assessment of these factors may change over time as individual proceedings or claims progress. Unless otherwise indicated, a range of loss associated with any individual legal proceeding set forth below reasonably cannot be estimated. We cannot predict the outcome of legal proceedings with certainty. These matters include the following items that have been previously reported.

Legal Proceedings

On July 20, 2011, the City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System filed a class action lawsuit against us and two of our executive officers (Robert J. Stevens, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Bruce L. Tanner, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of our common stock from April 21, 2009 through July 21, 2009, alleges that we violated certain sections of the federal securities laws (including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) by allegedly making statements, primarily about the then-expected performance of our IS&GS business segment, that contained either false statements of material facts or omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, or engaged in other acts that operated as an alleged fraud upon class members who purchased our common stock during that period. The complaint further alleges that the statutory safe harbor provided for forward-looking statements does not apply to any of the allegedly false statements. The complaint does not allege a specific amount of monetary damages. We believe that the allegations are without merit and intend to defend against the action and any related actions that may be filed.

On June 24, 2009, the U.K. Ministry of Defence (MoD) sent us a letter alleging that we were in default on the "Soothsayer" contract under which we were providing electronic warfare equipment to the British military. The total value of the contract is UK £144 million, of which UK £39 million has been paid to date (representing approximately US $230 million and US $62 million, based on the exchange rate as of June 26, 2011). The MoD has demanded repayment of amounts paid under the contract, liquidated damages of UK £2 million (representing approximately US $3 million based on the exchange rate as of June 26, 2011), and interest on those amounts, and has reserved the right to collect any excess future re-procurement costs. We dispute the MoD's position. We have commenced an arbitration proceeding against the MoD pursuant to the contract terms and are seeking damages for wrongful termination of the contract.

On April 24, 2009, we filed a declaratory judgment action against the N.Y. Metropolitan Transportation Authority and its Capital Construction Company (collectively, the MTA) asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of N.Y. to find that the MTA is in material breach of our agreement based on the MTA's failure to provide access to sites where work must be performed and customer-furnished equipment necessary to complete the contract. The contract has a total value of $323 million, of which $241 million has been paid to date. The MTA filed an answer and counterclaim alleging that we breached the contract, and subsequently terminated the contract for alleged default. The MTA is seeking monetary damages and other relief under the contract, including the cost to complete the contract and potential re-procurement costs. We dispute the MTA's allegations and are defending against them. Discovery is proceeding in the action.

On November 30, 2007, the Department of Justice (DoJ) filed a complaint in partial intervention in a lawsuit filed under the qui tam provisions of the Civil False Claims Act in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, United States ex rel. Becker and Spencer v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al., alleging that we should have known that a subcontractor falsified and inflated invoices submitted to us that were passed through to the government. The DoJ is seeking approximately $80 million in damages, including interest but excluding potential penalties under the False Claims Act. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them.

On September 11, 2006, we and Lockheed Martin Investment Management Company (LMIMCo), a subsidiary, were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, seeking to represent a class of purportedly similarly situated participants and beneficiaries in two of our 401(k) plans. Plaintiffs allege that we or LMIMCo caused our plans to pay expenses that were higher than reasonable by, among other actions, permitting service providers of the plans to engage in revenue sharing, paying investment management fees for the company stock funds, and causing the company stock funds to hold cash for liquidity, thus reducing the return on those funds. The plaintiffs also allege that we failed to disclose information appropriately relating to the fees associated with managing the plans. In August 2008, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding allegations that we breached fiduciary duties under ERISA by providing inadequate disclosures with respect to the Stable Value Fund offered under our 401(k) plans. The complaint does not allege a specific calculation of damages, and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, or range of loss, which could be incurred if the plaintiffs were to prevail in the allegations, but believe that we have substantial defenses. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them. On March 31, 2009, the Judge dismissed a number of the plaintiffs' claims, leaving three claims for trial, specifically the plaintiffs' claims involving the company stock funds, the Stable Value Fund, and overall fees. The Court also granted class certification on two of the plaintiffs' claims. We appealed the class certification. On March 15, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the Court's class certification. The case has been remanded to the District Court.

On August 28, 2003, the DoJ filed complaints in partial intervention in two lawsuits filed under the qui tam provisions of the Civil False Claims Act in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, United States ex rel. Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, et al., and United States ex rel. John D. Tillson v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., et al. The DoJ alleges that we committed violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant by not properly handling, storing, and transporting hazardous waste and that we violated the False Claims Act by misleading Department of Energy officials and state regulators about the nature and extent of environmental noncompliance at the plant. The complaint does not allege a specific calculation of damages, and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, or range of loss, which could be incurred if the plaintiff were to prevail in the allegations, but believe that we have substantial defenses. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them.

As described in the "Environmental Matters" discussion below, we are subject to federal and state requirements for protection of the environment, including those for discharge of hazardous materials and remediation of contaminated sites. As a result, we are a party to or have property subject to various other lawsuits or proceedings involving environmental matters and remediation obligations. This includes the litigation we have been in with certain residents of Redlands, California since 1997 before the California Superior Court for San Bernardino County regarding allegations of personal injury, property damage, and other tort claims on behalf of individuals arising from our alleged contribution to regional groundwater contamination. In 2006, the California Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs' punitive damages claim. In 2008, the trial court dismissed the remaining first tier plaintiffs, ending the first round of individual trials. The dismissal was affirmed by both the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. The trial court has now established the procedures for the litigation of the next round of individual plaintiffs, and pre-trial proceedings are now underway. The complaint does not allege a specific calculation of damages, and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, or range of loss, which could be incurred if the plaintiffs were to prevail in the allegations, but believe that we have substantial defenses. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them.

Environmental Matters

We are involved in environmental proceedings and potential proceedings relating to soil and groundwater contamination, disposal of hazardous waste, and other environmental matters at several of our current or former facilities, or at third-party sites where we have been designated as a potentially responsible party (PRP). A substantial portion of environmental costs will be included in our net sales and cost of sales in future periods pursuant to U.S. Government regulations. At the time a liability is recorded for future environmental costs, we record an asset for estimated future recovery considered probable through the pricing of products and services to agencies of the U.S. Government, regardless of the contract form (e.g., cost-reimbursable, fixed price). We continuously evaluate the recoverability of our environmental receivables by assessing, among other factors, U.S. Government regulations, our U.S. Government business base and contract mix, and our history of receiving reimbursement of such costs. We include the portion of those environmental costs expected to be allocated to our non-U.S. Government contracts, or that is determined to be unallowable for pricing under U.S. Government contracts, in our cost of sales at the time the liability is established. At June 26, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the aggregate amount of liabilities recorded relative to environmental matters was $921 million and $935 million, of which $807 million is recorded in other liabilities on the Balance Sheets at June 26, 2011 and December 31, 2010, with the remainder recorded in other current liabilities. We have recorded assets totaling $797 million and $810 million at June 26, 2011, and December 31, 2010, for the estimated future recovery of these costs, as we consider the recovery probable based on the factors previously mentioned. Of those amounts, $699 million are recorded in other assets on the Balance Sheets at June 26, 2011 and December 31, 2010, with the remainder recorded in other current assets. We project costs and recovery of costs over approximately twenty years.

Environmental cleanup activities usually span several years, which make estimating liabilities a matter of judgment because of such factors as changing remediation technologies, assessments of the extent of contamination, and continually evolving regulatory environmental standards. We consider these and other factors in estimates of the timing and amount of any future costs that may be required for remediation actions, which results in the calculation of a range of estimates for a particular environmental remediation site.

We perform quarterly reviews of the status of our environmental remediation sites and the related liabilities and assets. We record a liability when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The amount of liability recorded is based on our best estimate of the costs to be incurred for remediation at a particular site within a range of estimates for that site or, in cases where no amount within the range is better than another, we record an amount at the low end of the range. We do not discount the recorded liabilities, as the amount and timing of future cash payments are not fixed or cannot be reliably determined.

We cannot reasonably determine the extent of our financial exposure in all cases at this time. There are a number of former operating facilities that we are monitoring or investigating for potential future remediation. In some cases, although a loss may be probable, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the amount of any obligation for remediation activities because of uncertainties with respect to assessing the extent of the contamination or the applicable regulatory standard. We also are pursuing claims for contribution to site cleanup costs against other PRPs, including the U.S. Government.

In January 2011, both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment announced plans to regulate two chemicals, perchlorate and hexavalent chromium, to levels that are expected to be substantially lower than the existing respective standards established in California. The rulemaking processes are lengthy ones and may take one or more years to complete. If substantially lower standards are adopted, we would expect a material increase in our estimates for environmental liabilities and the related assets for the portion of the increased costs that are probable of future recovery in the pricing of our products and services for the U.S. Government. The amount that would be allocable to our non-U.S. Government contracts or that is determined to be unallowable for pricing under U.S. Government contracts would be expensed, which may have a material effect on our earnings in any particular quarter.

We are conducting remediation activities, including under various consent decrees and orders, relating to soil or groundwater contamination at certain sites of former or current operations. Under an agreement related to our Burbank and Glendale, California sites, the U.S. Government reimburses us an amount equal to approximately 50% of expenditures for certain remediation activities in its capacity as a PRP under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

Letters of Credit, Surety Bonds, and Third-Party Guarantees

We have entered into standby letters of credit, surety bonds, and third-party guarantees with financial institutions and other third parties primarily relating to advances received from customers and the guarantee of future performance on certain contracts. Letters of credit and surety bonds are generally available for draw down in the event we do not perform. In some cases, we may guarantee the contractual performance of third parties such as joint venture partners. We have total outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds, and third-party guarantees aggregating $4.1 billion and $4.2 billion at June 26, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Of these amounts, approximately $1.0 billion relate to third-party guarantees.

Approximately 90% and 85% of the $1.0 billion in third-party guarantees outstanding at June 26, 2011 and December 31, 2010 related to guarantees of the contractual performance of joint ventures to which we are currently or were previously a party. This amount represents our estimate of the maximum amount we would expect to incur upon the contractual non-performance of the joint venture partners. We evaluate the reputation, technical capabilities, and credit quality of potential joint venture partners. In addition, we generally have cross-indemnities in place that may enable us to recover amounts that may be paid on behalf of a joint venture partner. We believe our current and former joint venture partners will be able to perform their obligations, as they have done through June 26, 2011, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the guarantees.

United Launch Alliance

In connection with our 50% ownership interest of United Launch Alliance, L.L.C. (ULA), we and The Boeing Company (Boeing) have each received distributions totaling $305 million which are subject to agreements between us, Boeing, and ULA, whereby, if ULA does not have sufficient cash resources or credit capacity to make payments under the inventory supply agreement it has with Boeing, both we and Boeing would provide to ULA, in the form of an additional capital contribution, the level of funding required for ULA to make those payments. Any such capital contributions would not exceed the amount of the distributions subject to the agreements. We currently believe that ULA will have sufficient operating cash flows and credit capacity, including access to its $400 million revolving credit agreement from third-party financial institutions, to meet its obligations such that we would not be required to make a contribution under these agreements.

In addition, both we and Boeing have cross-indemnified each other for certain financial support arrangements (e.g., letters of credit, surety bonds, or foreign exchange contracts provided by either party) and guarantees by us and Boeing of the performance and financial obligations of ULA under certain launch service contracts. We believe ULA will be able to fully perform its obligations, as it has done through June 26, 2011, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the cross-indemnities or guarantees.