LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 25, 2016
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 8 – 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, including liabilities retained from, or indemnities provided in connection with, divested businesses. These types of matters could result in fines, penalties, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary sanctions or relief. We believe the probability is remote that the outcome of each of these matters, including the legal proceedings described 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 as individual proceedings or claims progress. Although we cannot predict the outcome of legal or other proceedings with certainty, where there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred, 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. We follow a thorough process in which we seek to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, and only if we are unable to make such an estimate do 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 As a result of our acquisition of Sikorsky, we assumed the defense of and any potential liability for the following civil False Claims Act lawsuit. In October 2014, the U.S. Government filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging that Sikorsky and two of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Derco Aerospace (Derco) and Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. (SSSI), violated the civil False Claims Act in connection with a contract that the U.S. Navy awarded to SSSI in June 2006 to support the Navy’s T-34 and T-44 fixed-wing turboprop training aircraft. SSSI subcontracted with Derco primarily to procure and manage the spare parts for the training aircraft. The Government alleges that SSSI overbilled the Navy on the contract because Derco added profit and overhead costs to the price of the spare parts that Derco procured and then sold to SSSI. The Government also claims that SSSI submitted false Certificates of Final Indirect Costs in the years 2006 through 2012. The Government’s complaint asserts numerous claims for violations of the False Claims Act, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Government seeks damages in excess of $45 million, subject to trebling, plus statutory penalties. We believe that we have legal and factual defenses to the government’s claims. Although we continue to evaluate our liability and exposure, we do not currently believe that it is probable that we will incur a material loss. If, contrary to our expectations, the Government prevails in this matter and proves damages at the high end of the range sought and is successful in having these trebled, the outcome could have an adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which a liability is recognized and on our cash flows for the period in which any damages are paid. 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 the 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 completing 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, and that the MTA is seeking damages of approximately $190 million. 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 of approximately $95 million. This matter was taken under submission by the District Court in December 2014, after a five-week bench trial and the filing of post-trial pleadings by the parties. At this time we are awaiting a decision from the District Court. Although this matter relates to the IS&GS business segment, we retained it when IS&GS was divested. Environmental Matters We are involved in environmental proceedings and potential proceedings relating to soil, sediment 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 not be recoverable under U.S. Government contracts, in our cost of sales at the time the liability is established. At both September 25, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the aggregate amount of liabilities recorded relative to environmental matters was $1.0 billion, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent liabilities on our Balance Sheets. We have recorded receivables totaling $896 million and $858 million at September 25, 2016 and December 31, 2015, 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. 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 California 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. On August 25, 2016, the California Superior Court issued a tentative ruling in favor of the CMTA petition and held a hearing on August 26, 2016. Although we cannot predict the outcome of this suit, it is likely that the tentative ruling will be finalized and the standard will be remanded to the responsible agency for reconsideration. If the new standard remains at 10 ppb or is higher, 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 a second contaminant, perchlorate, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is also considering whether to regulate perchlorate and hexavalent chromium in drinking water. In February 2016, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed suit in federal court in New York against the U.S. EPA to compel the U.S. EPA to set an enforceable drinking water standard for perchlorate. If a substantially lower standard is 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 not be recoverable 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 ventures in which we participate, venture partners or businesses we previously owned. We had total outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds and third-party guarantees aggregating $3.8 billion at September 25, 2016 and December 31, 2015. We do not consider guarantees of subsidiaries and other consolidated entities to be third-party guarantees and they are not included in this amount. At September 25, 2016 and December 31, 2015, third-party guarantees totaled $694 million and $678 million, of which approximately 55% and 79% related to guarantees of contractual performance of ventures to which we currently are, or previously were, a party. Of the total third-party guarantees, at September 25, 2016, approximately $278 million, or 40%, related to the contractual performance of our former IS&GS business under the terms of guarantees that existed prior to the divestiture of this business. These guarantees are not included in the amounts of third-party guarantees at December 31, 2015 because the IS&GS business was a consolidated entity prior to its divestiture in the third quarter of 2016. We are currently negotiating the termination of the pre-existing guarantees with the related beneficiaries. The termination of these guarantees may be conditioned upon the replacement of the guarantees by guarantees to be issued by Leidos. The amounts of third-party guarantees represent our estimate of the maximum amount we would expect to incur upon the contractual non-performance of the venture, the venture partners or divested businesses. 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 or divested business. We believe our current and former venture partners and divested businesses will be able to perform their obligations, as they have done through September 25, 2016, and that it will not be necessary to make significant payments under the third-party guarantees with respect to the non-performance of the venture partners or divested businesses. In determining our exposures, we evaluate the reputation, performance on contractual obligations, technical capabilities and credit quality of our current and former venture partners and divested businesses. There were no material amounts recorded in our financial statements related to third-party guarantees. United Launch Alliance In connection with our 50% ownership interest of ULA, we and The Boeing Company (Boeing) are required to provide ULA an additional capital contribution if ULA is unable to make required payments under its inventory supply agreement with Boeing. As of September 25, 2016, ULA’s total remaining obligation to Boeing under the inventory supply agreement was $120 million. The parties have agreed to defer the remaining payment obligation, as it is more than offset by other commitments to ULA. Accordingly, we do not expect to be required to make a capital contribution to ULA under this agreement. 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 25, 2016, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the cross-indemnities or guarantees.

NOTE 8 – 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, including liabilities retained from, or indemnities provided in connection with, divested businesses. These types of matters could result in fines, penalties, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary sanctions or relief. We believe the probability is remote that the outcome of each of these matters, including the legal proceedings described 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 as individual proceedings or claims progress.

Although we cannot predict the outcome of legal or other proceedings with certainty, where there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred, 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. We follow a thorough process in which we seek to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, and only if we are unable to make such an estimate do 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

As a result of our acquisition of Sikorsky, we assumed the defense of and any potential liability for the following civil False Claims Act lawsuit. In October 2014, the U.S. Government filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging that Sikorsky and two of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Derco Aerospace (Derco) and Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. (SSSI), violated the civil False Claims Act in connection with a contract that the U.S. Navy awarded to SSSI in June 2006 to support the Navy’s T-34 and T-44 fixed-wing turboprop training aircraft. SSSI subcontracted with Derco primarily to procure and manage the spare parts for the training aircraft. The Government alleges that SSSI overbilled the Navy on the contract because Derco added profit and overhead costs to the price of the spare parts that Derco procured and then sold to SSSI. The Government also claims that SSSI submitted false Certificates of Final Indirect Costs in the years 2006 through 2012.

The Government’s complaint asserts numerous claims for violations of the False Claims Act, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Government seeks damages in excess of $45 million, subject to trebling, plus statutory penalties. We believe that we have legal and factual defenses to the government’s claims. Although we continue to evaluate our liability and exposure, we do not currently believe that it is probable that we will incur a material loss. If, contrary to our expectations, the Government prevails in this matter and proves damages at the high end of the range sought and is successful in having these trebled, the outcome could have an adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which a liability is recognized and on our cash flows for the period in which any damages are paid.

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 the 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 completing 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, and that the MTA is seeking damages of approximately $190 million. 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 of approximately $95 million. This matter was taken under submission by the District Court in December 2014, after a five-week bench trial and the filing of post-trial pleadings by the parties. At this time we are awaiting a decision from the District Court. Although this matter relates to the IS&GS business segment, we retained it when IS&GS was divested.

Environmental Matters

We are involved in environmental proceedings and potential proceedings relating to soil, sediment 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 not be recoverable under U.S. Government contracts, in our cost of sales at the time the liability is established.

At both September 25, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the aggregate amount of liabilities recorded relative to environmental matters was $1.0 billion, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent liabilities on our Balance Sheets. We have recorded receivables totaling $896 million and $858 million at September 25, 2016 and December 31, 2015, 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.

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 California 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. On August 25, 2016, the California Superior Court issued a tentative ruling in favor of the CMTA petition and held a hearing on August 26, 2016. Although we cannot predict the outcome of this suit, it is likely that the tentative ruling will be finalized and the standard will be remanded to the responsible agency for reconsideration. If the new standard remains at 10 ppb or is higher, 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 a second contaminant, perchlorate, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is also considering whether to regulate perchlorate and hexavalent chromium in drinking water. In February 2016, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed suit in federal court in New York against the U.S. EPA to compel the U.S. EPA to set an enforceable drinking water standard for perchlorate. If a substantially lower standard is 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 not be recoverable 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 ventures in which we participate, venture partners or businesses we previously owned. We had total outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds and third-party guarantees aggregating $3.8 billion at September 25, 2016 and December 31, 2015. We do not consider guarantees of subsidiaries and other consolidated entities to be third-party guarantees and they are not included in this amount.

At September 25, 2016 and December 31, 2015, third-party guarantees totaled $694 million and $678 million, of which approximately 55% and 79% related to guarantees of contractual performance of ventures to which we currently are, or previously were, a party. Of the total third-party guarantees, at September 25, 2016, approximately $278 million, or 40%, related to the contractual performance of our former IS&GS business under the terms of guarantees that existed prior to the divestiture of this business. These guarantees are not included in the amounts of third-party guarantees at December 31, 2015 because the IS&GS business was a consolidated entity prior to its divestiture in the third quarter of 2016. We are currently negotiating the termination of the pre-existing guarantees with the related beneficiaries. The termination of these guarantees may be conditioned upon the replacement of the guarantees by guarantees to be issued by Leidos.

The amounts of third-party guarantees represent our estimate of the maximum amount we would expect to incur upon the contractual non-performance of the venture, the venture partners or divested businesses. 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 or divested business. We believe our current and former venture partners and divested businesses will be able to perform their obligations, as they have done through September 25, 2016, and that it will not be necessary to make significant payments under the third-party guarantees with respect to the non-performance of the venture partners or divested businesses. In determining our exposures, we evaluate the reputation, performance on contractual obligations, technical capabilities and credit quality of our current and former venture partners and divested businesses. There were no material amounts recorded in our financial statements related to third-party guarantees.

United Launch Alliance

In connection with our 50% ownership interest of ULA, we and The Boeing Company (Boeing) are required to provide ULA an additional capital contribution if ULA is unable to make required payments under its inventory supply agreement with Boeing. As of September 25, 2016, ULA’s total remaining obligation to Boeing under the inventory supply agreement was $120 million. The parties have agreed to defer the remaining payment obligation, as it is more than offset by other commitments to ULA. Accordingly, we do not expect to be required to make a capital contribution to ULA under this agreement.

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 25, 2016, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the cross-indemnities or guarantees.