LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 28, 2014
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 6 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES We are a party to or have property subject to litigation and other proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment, and are subject to contingencies related to certain businesses we previously owned. These types of matters could result in fines, penalties, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary relief. We believe the probability is remote that the outcome of each of these matters, including the legal proceedings mentioned 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 interim reporting period. 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. Although we cannot predict the outcome of legal or other proceedings with certainty, GAAP requires us to disclose an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss or make a statement that such an estimate cannot be made for contingencies where there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred. We have a thorough process to determine an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss before we conclude and disclose that an estimate cannot be made. Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated below in our discussion of legal proceedings, a reasonably possible loss or range of loss associated with any individual legal proceeding cannot be estimated. Legal Proceedings On April 24, 2009, we filed a declaratory judgment action against the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority and its Capital Construction Company (collectively, the MTA) asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 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 MTA filed an answer and counterclaim alleging that we breached the contract, and subsequently terminated the contract for alleged default. The primary damages sought by the MTA are the cost to complete the contract and potential re-procurement costs. While we are unable to estimate the cost of another contractor to complete the contract and the costs of re-procurement, we note that our contract with the MTA had a total value of $323 million, of which $241 million was paid to us. We dispute the MTA’s allegations and are defending against them. Additionally, following an investigation, our sureties on a performance bond related to this matter, who were represented by independent counsel, concluded that the MTA’s termination of the contract was improper. Finally, our declaratory judgment action was later amended to include claims for monetary damages against the MTA. A bench trial of this matter began on October 6, 2014. On August 28, 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed complaints in partial intervention in two lawsuits filed under the civil qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act in the U.S. 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. On April 16, 2013, the parties attended a settlement conference ordered by the magistrate judge. The conference focused on the parties’ sharply differing views of the merits of the case and did not significantly contribute to our understanding of the damages sought. Court ordered mediation is anticipated to occur in December 2014. As part of the process in which the parties selected a mediator, the plaintiffs expressly declined to quantify the damages sought, even in the form of a range, and stated only that their view of the merits of the case continues to differ substantially from ours. Accordingly, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, which could be incurred if the plaintiffs were to prevail, but we believe 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 a receivable 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 September 28, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the aggregate amount of liabilities recorded relative to environmental matters was $963 million and $997 million, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent liabilities on our Balance Sheets. We have recorded receivables totaling $834 million and $863 million at September 28, 2014 and December 31, 2013, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent assets on our Balance Sheets, for the estimated future recovery of these costs, as we consider the recovery probable based on the factors previously mentioned. We project costs and recovery of costs over approximately 20 years. Environmental cleanup activities usually span several years, which makes estimating liabilities a matter of judgment because of uncertainties with respect to assessing the extent of the contamination as well as such factors as changing remediation technologies and continually evolving regulatory environmental standards. There are a number of former operating facilities that we are monitoring or investigating for potential future remediation. We perform quarterly reviews of the status of our environmental remediation sites and the related liabilities and receivables. Additionally, in our quarterly reviews we consider these and other factors in estimating the timing and amount of any future costs that may be required for remediation activities and record a liability when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the loss can be reasonably estimated. The amount of liability recorded is based on our estimate of the costs to be incurred for remediation at a particular site. 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 reasonably cannot determine the extent of our financial exposure in all cases as, although a loss may be probable or reasonably possible, in some cases it is not possible at this time to estimate the loss or reasonably possible loss or range of loss. We also are pursuing claims for recovery of costs incurred or contribution to site cleanup costs against other PRPs, including the U.S. Government, and are conducting remediation activities under various consent decrees and orders relating to soil, groundwater, sediment, or surface water 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). On July 1, 2014, a regulation became effective in California setting the maximum level of the contaminant hexavalent chromium in drinking water at 10 parts per billion (ppb). In May 2014, the Manufacturers and Technology Association filed a suit alleging the 10 ppb threshold is lower than is required to protect public health and thus imposes unjustified costs on the regulated community. We cannot predict the outcome of this suit, or whether other challenges may be advanced by the regulated community or environmental groups which had sought a significantly higher and lower standard, respectively. If the new standard remains at 10 ppb, it will not have a material impact on our existing remediation costs in California. In addition, California is reevaluating its existing drinking water standard with respect to perchlorate, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is also considering whether to regulate perchlorate and hexavalent chromium in drinking water. If substantially lower standards are adopted, in either California or at the federal level, for perchlorate or, if the U.S. EPA were to adopt a standard for hexavalent chromium lower than 10 ppb, we 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 interim reporting period. 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 generally are 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 venture partners. We had total outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds, and third-party guarantees aggregating $2.4 billion at both September 28, 2014 and December 31, 2013. At September 28, 2014 and December 31, 2013, third-party guarantees totaled $743 million and $696 million, of which approximately 90% related to guarantees of contractual performance of ventures to which we currently are or previously were a party. This amount represents our estimate of the maximum amount we would expect to incur upon the contractual non-performance of the 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 venture partner. We believe our current and former venture partners will be able to perform their obligations, as they have done through September 28, 2014, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the guarantees. In determining our exposures, we evaluate the reputation, technical capabilities, and credit quality of our current and former venture partners. United Launch Alliance In connection with our 50% ownership interest of ULA, we and The Boeing Company (Boeing) have each received distributions from ULA, including distributions of $527 million that we and Boeing have each received (since ULA’s formation in December 2006) which are subject to agreements between us, Boeing, and ULA, whereby, if ULA does not have sufficient cash resources or credit capacity to make required 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. Based on current expectations of ULA’s cash flow needs, we currently believe that ULA should have sufficient operating cash flows and credit capacity, including access to its $560 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 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 September 28, 2014, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the cross-indemnities or guarantees.

NOTE 6 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES

We are a party to or have property subject to litigation and other proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment, and are subject to contingencies related to certain businesses we previously owned. These types of matters could result in fines, penalties, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary relief. We believe the probability is remote that the outcome of each of these matters, including the legal proceedings mentioned 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 interim reporting period. 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.

Although we cannot predict the outcome of legal or other proceedings with certainty, GAAP requires us to disclose an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss or make a statement that such an estimate cannot be made for contingencies where there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred. We have a thorough process to determine an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss before we conclude and disclose that an estimate cannot be made. Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated below in our discussion of legal proceedings, a reasonably possible loss or range of loss associated with any individual legal proceeding cannot be estimated.

Legal Proceedings

On April 24, 2009, we filed a declaratory judgment action against the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority and its Capital Construction Company (collectively, the MTA) asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 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 MTA filed an answer and counterclaim alleging that we breached the contract, and subsequently terminated the contract for alleged default. The primary damages sought by the MTA are the cost to complete the contract and potential re-procurement costs. While we are unable to estimate the cost of another contractor to complete the contract and the costs of re-procurement, we note that our contract with the MTA had a total value of $323 million, of which $241 million was paid to us. We dispute the MTA’s allegations and are defending against them. Additionally, following an investigation, our sureties on a performance bond related to this matter, who were represented by independent counsel, concluded that the MTA’s termination of the contract was improper. Finally, our declaratory judgment action was later amended to include claims for monetary damages against the MTA. A bench trial of this matter began on October 6, 2014.

On August 28, 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed complaints in partial intervention in two lawsuits filed under the civil qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act in the U.S. 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. On April 16, 2013, the parties attended a settlement conference ordered by the magistrate judge. The conference focused on the parties’ sharply differing views of the merits of the case and did not significantly contribute to our understanding of the damages sought. Court ordered mediation is anticipated to occur in December 2014. As part of the process in which the parties selected a mediator, the plaintiffs expressly declined to quantify the damages sought, even in the form of a range, and stated only that their view of the merits of the case continues to differ substantially from ours. Accordingly, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, which could be incurred if the plaintiffs were to prevail, but we believe 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 a receivable 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 September 28, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the aggregate amount of liabilities recorded relative to environmental matters was $963 million and $997 million, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent liabilities on our Balance Sheets. We have recorded receivables totaling $834 million and $863 million at September 28, 2014 and December 31, 2013, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent assets on our Balance Sheets, for the estimated future recovery of these costs, as we consider the recovery probable based on the factors previously mentioned. We project costs and recovery of costs over approximately 20 years.

Environmental cleanup activities usually span several years, which makes estimating liabilities a matter of judgment because of uncertainties with respect to assessing the extent of the contamination as well as such factors as changing remediation technologies and continually evolving regulatory environmental standards. There are a number of former operating facilities that we are monitoring or investigating for potential future remediation. We perform quarterly reviews of the status of our environmental remediation sites and the related liabilities and receivables. Additionally, in our quarterly reviews we consider these and other factors in estimating the timing and amount of any future costs that may be required for remediation activities and record a liability when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the loss can be reasonably estimated. The amount of liability recorded is based on our estimate of the costs to be incurred for remediation at a particular site. 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 reasonably cannot determine the extent of our financial exposure in all cases as, although a loss may be probable or reasonably possible, in some cases it is not possible at this time to estimate the loss or reasonably possible loss or range of loss.

We also are pursuing claims for recovery of costs incurred or contribution to site cleanup costs against other PRPs, including the U.S. Government, and are conducting remediation activities under various consent decrees and orders relating to soil, groundwater, sediment, or surface water 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).

On July 1, 2014, a regulation became effective in California setting the maximum level of the contaminant hexavalent chromium in drinking water at 10 parts per billion (ppb). In May 2014, the Manufacturers and Technology Association filed a suit alleging the 10 ppb threshold is lower than is required to protect public health and thus imposes unjustified costs on the regulated community. We cannot predict the outcome of this suit, or whether other challenges may be advanced by the regulated community or environmental groups which had sought a significantly higher and lower standard, respectively. If the new standard remains at 10 ppb, it will not have a material impact on our existing remediation costs in California.

In addition, California is reevaluating its existing drinking water standard with respect to perchlorate, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is also considering whether to regulate perchlorate and hexavalent chromium in drinking water. If substantially lower standards are adopted, in either California or at the federal level, for perchlorate or, if the U.S. EPA were to adopt a standard for hexavalent chromium lower than 10 ppb, we 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 interim reporting period.

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 generally are 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 venture partners. We had total outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds, and third-party guarantees aggregating $2.4 billion at both September 28, 2014 and December 31, 2013.

At September 28, 2014 and December 31, 2013, third-party guarantees totaled $743 million and $696 million, of which approximately 90% related to guarantees of contractual performance of ventures to which we currently are or previously were a party. This amount represents our estimate of the maximum amount we would expect to incur upon the contractual non-performance of the 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 venture partner. We believe our current and former venture partners will be able to perform their obligations, as they have done through September 28, 2014, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the guarantees. In determining our exposures, we evaluate the reputation, technical capabilities, and credit quality of our current and former venture partners.

United Launch Alliance

In connection with our 50% ownership interest of ULA, we and The Boeing Company (Boeing) have each received distributions from ULA, including distributions of $527 million that we and Boeing have each received (since ULA’s formation in December 2006) which are subject to agreements between us, Boeing, and ULA, whereby, if ULA does not have sufficient cash resources or credit capacity to make required 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. Based on current expectations of ULA’s cash flow needs, we currently believe that ULA should have sufficient operating cash flows and credit capacity, including access to its $560 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 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 September 28, 2014, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the cross-indemnities or guarantees.