LMT » Topics » Item 1. Legal Proceedings

This excerpt taken from the LMT 10-Q filed Apr 23, 2009.

Legal Proceedings

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. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them.

On February 22, 2007, we received a subpoena issued by a grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The subpoena requests documents related to our participation in a competition conducted in 2004-2005 by the National Archives and Records Administration for a $3 million contract to provide Electronic Document System (eDOCS) Support Services. We are cooperating with the investigation.

On September 11, 2006, we and Lockheed Martin Investment Management Company (LMIMCo), our wholly-owned 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 our Salaried Savings Plan and the Hourly Savings Plan (the Plans). Plaintiffs allege that we or LMIMCo caused the 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 further allege that we or LMIMCo 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 or LMIMCo breached fiduciary duties under ERISA by providing inadequate disclosures with respect to the Stable Value Fund offered under our 401(k) plans. In April 2009, the Judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims that were based on revenue sharing but let stand the claims about the company stock funds, the Stable Value Fund, and the overall fees paid by the Plans. The Judge also certified a class for each Plan for the claims concerning the Stable Value Fund and the overall fees paid by the Plans. We are appealing that order. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them.

On February 6, 2004, we submitted a certified contract claim to the United States requesting contractual indemnity for remediation and litigation costs (past and future) related to our former facility in Redlands, California. We submitted the claim consistent with a claim sponsorship agreement with The Boeing Company (Boeing), executed in 2001, in Boeing’s role as the prime contractor on the Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM) program. The contract for the SRAM program, which formed a significant portion of our work at the Redlands facility, had special contractual indemnities from the U.S. Air Force, as authorized by Public Law 85-804. On August 31, 2004, the United States denied the claim. Our appeal of that decision is pending with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

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,

 

      11
     


Table of Contents

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (continued)

 

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. 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.

We have been in litigation 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. On July 11, 2006, the California Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. On September 23, 2008, the trial court dismissed the remaining first tier plaintiffs, ending the first round of individual trials. The first tier plaintiffs are pursuing their appellate remedies, and opposing counsel has asked the trial court to consider procedures for the litigation of the next round of individual plaintiffs.

This excerpt taken from the LMT 10-K filed Feb 26, 2009.

Legal Proceedings

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. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them.

On February 22, 2007, we received a subpoena issued by a grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The subpoena requests documents related to our participation in a competition conducted in 2004-2005 by the National Archives and Records Administration for a $3 million contract to provide Electronic Document System (eDOCS) Support Services. We are cooperating with the investigation.

On February 6, 2004, we submitted a certified contract claim to the United States requesting contractual indemnity for remediation and litigation costs (past and future) related to our former facility in Redlands, California. We submitted the claim consistent with a claim sponsorship agreement with The Boeing Company (Boeing), executed in 2001, in Boeing’s role as the prime contractor on the Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM) program. The contract for the SRAM program, which formed a significant portion of our work at the Redlands facility, had special contractual indemnities from the U.S. Air Force, as authorized by Public Law 85-804. On August 31, 2004, the United States denied the claim. Our appeal of that decision is pending with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

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

 

90


Table of Contents

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. 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.

On September 11, 2006, we and LMIMCo 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 our Salaried Savings Plan and the Hourly Savings Plan (the Plans). Plaintiffs allege that we or LMIMCo caused the 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 further allege that we or LMIMCo 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 or LMIMCo breached fiduciary duties under ERISA with respect to particular funds offered under our 401(k) plans. Plaintiffs have moved to certify a class in the matter, and we have opposed that motion. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them.

We have been in litigation 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. On July 11, 2006, the California Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. On September 23, 2008, the trial court dismissed the remaining first tier plaintiffs, ending the first round of individual trials. The first tier plaintiffs are pursuing their appellate remedies, and opposing counsel has asked the trial court to consider procedures for the litigation of the next round of individual plaintiffs.

This excerpt taken from the LMT 10-Q filed Oct 24, 2008.

Legal Proceedings

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. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them.

 

      9
     


Lockheed Martin Corporation

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (continued)

 

On February 22, 2007, we received a subpoena issued by a grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The subpoena requests documents related to our participation in a competition conducted in 2004-2005 by the National Archives and Records Administration for a $3 million contract to provide Electronic Document System (eDOCS) Support Services. We are cooperating with the investigation.

On February 6, 2004, we submitted a certified contract claim to the United States requesting contractual indemnity for remediation and litigation costs (past and future) related to our former facility in Redlands, California. We submitted the claim consistent with a claim sponsorship agreement with The Boeing Company (Boeing), executed in 2001, in Boeing’s role as the prime contractor on the Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM) program. The contract for the SRAM program, which formed a significant portion of our work at the Redlands facility, had special contractual indemnities from the U.S. Air Force, as authorized by Public Law 85-804. On August 31, 2004, the United States denied the claim. Our appeal of that decision is pending with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

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. 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.

We have been in litigation 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. On July 11, 2006, the California Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. On September 23, 2008, the trial court dismissed the remaining first tier plaintiffs, ending the first round of individual trials. The first tier plaintiffs are pursuing their appellate remedies, and opposing counsel has asked the trial court to consider procedures for the litigation of the next round of individual plaintiffs.

This excerpt taken from the LMT 10-Q filed Jul 23, 2008.

Legal Proceedings

On February 22, 2007, we received a subpoena issued by a grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The subpoena requests documents related to our participation in a competition conducted in 2004-2005 by the National Archives and Records Administration for a $3 million contract to provide Electronic Document System (eDOCS) Support Services. We are cooperating with the investigation.

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

 

      9
     


Table of Contents

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (continued)

 

falsified and inflated invoices submitted to us that were passed through to the government. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them.

On February 6, 2004, we submitted a certified contract claim to the United States requesting contractual indemnity for remediation and litigation costs (past and future) related to our former facility in Redlands, California. We submitted the claim consistent with a claim sponsorship agreement with The Boeing Company, executed in 2001, in Boeing’s role as the prime contractor on the Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM) program. The contract for the SRAM program, which formed a significant portion of our work at the Redlands facility, had special contractual indemnities from the U.S. Air Force, as authorized by Public Law 85-804. On August 31, 2004, the United States denied the claim. Our appeal of that decision is pending with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

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. 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.

We have been in litigation 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. On July 11, 2006, the California Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. Proceedings in the trial court have resumed, but a trial date has not been set.

This excerpt taken from the LMT 10-Q filed Apr 24, 2008.

Legal Proceedings

On November 30, 2007, the Department of Justice 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. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them.

On February 22, 2007, we received a subpoena issued by a grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The subpoena requests documents related to our participation in a competition conducted in 2004-2005 by the National Archives and Records Administration for a $3 million contract to provide Electronic Document System (eDOCS) Support Services. We are cooperating with the investigation.

 

      9


Table of Contents

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (continued)

 

On February 6, 2004, we submitted a certified contract claim to the United States requesting contractual indemnity for remediation and litigation costs (past and future) related to our former facility in Redlands, California. We submitted the claim consistent with a claim sponsorship agreement with The Boeing Company (Boeing), executed in 2001, in Boeing’s role as the prime contractor on the Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM) program. The contract for the SRAM program, which formed a significant portion of our work at the Redlands facility, had special contractual indemnities from the U.S. Air Force, as authorized by Public Law 85-804. On August 31, 2004, the United States denied the claim. Our appeal of that decision is pending with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

On August 28, 2003, the Department of Justice (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. 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.

We have been in litigation 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. On July 11, 2006, the California Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. Proceedings in the trial court have resumed, but a trial date has not been set.

This excerpt taken from the LMT 10-K filed Feb 28, 2008.

Legal Proceedings

On November 30, 2007, the Department of Justice 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. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them.

On February 22, 2007, we received a subpoena issued by a grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The subpoena requests documents related to our participation in a competition conducted in 2004-2005 by the National Archives and Records Administration for a $3 million contract to provide Electronic Document System (eDOCS) Support Services. We are cooperating with the investigation.

On March 27, 2006, we received a subpoena issued by a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The subpoena requested documents related to our application for patents issued in the United States and the United Kingdom relating to a missile detection and warning technology. In August 2007, the investigation was closed, with no charges to be filed.

On February 6, 2004, we submitted a certified contract claim to the United States requesting contractual indemnity for remediation and litigation costs (past and future) related to our former facility in Redlands, California. We submitted the claim consistent with a claim sponsorship agreement with The Boeing Company (Boeing), executed in 2001, in Boeing’s role as the prime contractor on the Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM) program. The contract for the SRAM program, which formed a significant portion of our work at the Redlands facility, had special contractual indemnities from the U.S. Air Force, as authorized by Public Law 85-804. On August 31, 2004, the United States denied the claim. Our appeal of that decision is pending with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

On August 28, 2003, the Department of Justice (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. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them.

Nine lawsuits were filed against us as a result of an incident in July 2003 at our aircraft parts manufacturing facility in Meridian, Mississippi, which resulted in the deaths of seven employees and the wounding of eight others. Claims were brought against us by the estates of deceased employees, wounded employees, and employees and their relatives who claimed, among other things, tort and race discrimination causes of action. All claims have been settled or dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed all but two of those dismissals, both of which remain pending before that Court.

On October 19, 2005, Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles alleging that we and Boeing violated Federal and California antitrust and other statutes by attempting and conspiring to eliminate competition in, and by monopolizing and attempting to monopolize, the government Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) launch vehicle market, including through the proposed formation of the ULA joint venture. SpaceX sought monetary damages and to enjoin creation of the ULA joint venture. We and Boeing moved to dismiss. On February 17, 2006, the District Court dismissed the first amended complaint. SpaceX then filed a second amended complaint. On May 12, 2006, the District Court dismissed with prejudice SpaceX’s second amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding that SpaceX failed to allege a case or controversy because its inability to compete in the EELV market arises from SpaceX’s inability to offer a qualified launch vehicle and not from any actions by the defendants. SpaceX has appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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.

 

88


Table of Contents

We have been in litigation 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. On July 11, 2006, the California Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. Proceedings in the trial court have resumed, but a trial date has not been set.

This excerpt taken from the LMT 10-Q filed Oct 26, 2007.

Legal Proceedings

On February 22, 2007, we received a subpoena issued by a grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The subpoena requests documents related to our participation in a competition conducted in 2004-2005 by the National Archives and Records Administration for a $3 million contract to provide Electronic Document System (eDOCS) Support Services. We are cooperating with the investigation.

On March 27, 2006, we received a subpoena issued by a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The subpoena requests documents related to our application for patents issued in the United States and the United Kingdom relating to a missile detection and warning technology. In August 2007, the investigation was closed, with no charges to be filed.

On February 6, 2004, we submitted a certified contract claim to the United States requesting contractual indemnity for remediation and litigation costs (past and future) related to our former facility in Redlands, California. We submitted the claim consistent with a claim sponsorship agreement with The Boeing Company (Boeing), executed in 2001, in Boeing’s role as the prime contractor on the Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM) program. The contract for the SRAM program, which formed a significant portion of our work at the Redlands facility, had special contractual indemnities from the U.S. Air Force, as authorized by Public Law 85-804. On August 31, 2004, the United States denied the claim. Our appeal of that decision is pending with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

On August 28, 2003, the Department of Justice (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. We dispute the allegations and are defending against them.

Nine lawsuits were filed against us as a result of an incident in July 2003 at our aircraft parts manufacturing facility in Meridian, Mississippi, which resulted in the deaths of seven employees and the wounding of eight others. Claims were brought against us by the estates of deceased employees, wounded employees, and employees and their relatives who

      11


Lockheed Martin Corporation

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (continued)

 

claimed, among other things, tort and race discrimination causes of action. All claims have been settled or dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Appeals of substantially all of the dismissals are pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

On October 19, 2005, Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles alleging that we and Boeing violated Federal and California antitrust and other statutes by attempting and conspiring to eliminate competition in, and by monopolizing and attempting to monopolize, the government Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) launch vehicle market, including through the proposed formation of the United Launch Alliance L.L.C. (ULA) joint venture. SpaceX sought monetary damages and to enjoin creation of the ULA joint venture. We and Boeing moved to dismiss. On February 17, 2006, the District Court dismissed the first amended complaint. SpaceX then filed a second amended complaint. On May 12, 2006, the District Court dismissed with prejudice SpaceX’s second amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding that SpaceX failed to allege a case or controversy because its inability to compete in the EELV market arises from SpaceX’s inability to offer a qualified launch vehicle and not from any actions by the defendants. SpaceX has appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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.

We have been in litigation 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. On July 11, 2006, the California Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. Proceedings in the trial court have resumed, but a trial date has not been set.

This excerpt taken from the LMT 10-Q filed Jul 26, 2007.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

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, as described in “Note 6 – Legal Proceedings and Contingencies” in this Form 10-Q, and in our 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (Form 10-K), or arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management and in-house counsel, the probability is remote that the outcome of any such litigation or other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. The results of legal proceedings, however, cannot be predicted with certainty.

We are primarily engaged in providing products and services under contracts with the U.S. Government and, to a lesser degree, under direct foreign sales contracts, some of which are funded by the U.S. Government. These contracts are subject to extensive legal and regulatory requirements and, from time to time, agencies of the U.S. Government investigate whether our operations are being conducted in accordance with these requirements. U.S. Government investigations, whether relating to these contracts or conducted for other reasons, could result in administrative, civil or criminal liabilities, including repayments, fines or penalties being imposed on us, or could lead to our suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracting. U.S. Government investigations often take years to complete and many result in no adverse action against us.

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 our property subject to various other lawsuits or proceedings involving environmental protection matters. Due in part to their complexity and pervasiveness, such requirements have resulted in our being involved with related legal proceedings, claims and remediation obligations. The extent of our financial exposure cannot in all cases be reasonably estimated at this time. For information regarding these matters, including current estimates of the amounts that we believe are required for remediation or clean-up to the extent estimable, see “Note 6 – Legal Proceedings and Contingencies” on pages 10 through 14 of this Form 10-Q.

In addition, see the “Legal Proceedings” section of the Form 10-K for a description of previously reported matters.

 

36


Table of Contents

Lockheed Martin Corporation

 

This excerpt taken from the LMT 10-Q filed Apr 27, 2006.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

The Corporation is a party to or has property subject to litigation and other proceedings, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment, as described in “Note 6 – Legal Proceedings and Contingencies” of the Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in this Form 10-Q, and in the Corporation’s 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (Form 10-K), or arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management and in-house counsel, the probability is remote that the outcome of any such litigation or other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. The results of legal proceedings, however, cannot be predicted with certainty.

The Corporation is primarily engaged in providing products and services under contracts with the U.S. Government and, to a lesser degree, under direct foreign sales contracts, some of which are funded by the U.S. Government. These contracts are subject to extensive legal and regulatory requirements and, from time to time, agencies of the U.S. Government investigate whether the Corporation’s operations are being conducted in accordance with these requirements. U.S. Government investigations of the Corporation, whether relating to these contracts or conducted for other reasons, could result in administrative, civil or criminal liabilities, including repayments, fines or penalties being imposed upon the Corporation, or could lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracting. U.S. Government investigations often take years to complete and many result in no adverse action against the Corporation.

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 our property subject to various other lawsuits or proceedings involving environmental protection matters. Due in part to their complexity and pervasiveness, such requirements have resulted in our being involved with related legal proceedings, claims and remediation obligations. The extent of our financial exposure cannot in all cases be reasonably estimated at this time. For information regarding these matters, including current estimates of the amounts that we believe are required for remediation or clean-up to the extent estimable, see “Note 6 – Legal Proceedings and Contingencies” on pages 14 through 17 of this Form 10-Q.

In addition, see the “Legal Proceedings” section of the Form 10-K for a description of previously reported matters.

 

38


Table of Contents

Lockheed Martin Corporation

 

This excerpt taken from the LMT 10-Q filed Oct 28, 2005.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

 

The Corporation is a party to or has property subject to litigation and other proceedings, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment, as described in “Note 5 – Legal Proceedings and Contingencies” of the Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in this Form 10-Q, and in the Corporation’s 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K (Form 10-K), or arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management and in-house counsel, the probability is remote that the outcome of any such litigation or other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. The results of legal proceedings, however, cannot be predicted with certainty.

 

The Corporation is primarily engaged in providing products and services under contracts with the U.S. Government and, to a lesser degree, under direct foreign sales contracts, some of which are funded by the U.S. Government. These contracts are subject to extensive legal and regulatory requirements and, from time to time, agencies of the U.S. Government investigate whether the Corporation’s operations are being conducted in accordance with these requirements. U.S. Government investigations of the Corporation, whether relating to these contracts or conducted for other reasons, could result in administrative, civil or criminal liabilities, including repayments, fines or penalties being imposed upon the Corporation, or could lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracting. U.S. Government investigations often take years to complete and many result in no adverse action against the Corporation.

 

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 our property subject to various other lawsuits or proceedings involving environmental protection matters. Due in part to their complexity and pervasiveness, such requirements have resulted in our being involved with related legal proceedings, claims and remediation obligations. The extent of our financial exposure cannot in all cases be reasonably estimated at this time. For information regarding these matters, including current estimates of the amounts that we believe are required for remediation or clean-up to the extent estimable, see “Note 5 – Legal Proceedings and Contingencies” on pages 12 through 15 of this Form 10-Q.

 

In addition, see the “Legal Proceedings” section of the Form 10-K for a description of previously reported matters.

 

38


Table of Contents

Lockheed Martin Corporation

 

This excerpt taken from the LMT 10-Q filed Jul 28, 2005.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

 

The Corporation is a party to or has property subject to litigation and other proceedings, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment, as described in “Note 5 – Legal Proceedings and Contingencies” of the Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in this Form 10-Q, and in the Corporation’s 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K (Form 10-K), or arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management and in-house counsel, the probability is remote that the outcome of any such litigation or other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. The results of legal proceedings, however, cannot be predicted with certainty.

 

The Corporation is primarily engaged in providing products and services under contracts with the U.S. Government and, to a lesser degree, under direct foreign sales contracts, some of which are funded by the U.S. Government. These contracts are subject to extensive legal and regulatory requirements and, from time to time, agencies of the U.S. Government investigate whether the Corporation’s operations are being conducted in accordance with these requirements. U.S. Government investigations of the Corporation, whether relating to these contracts or conducted for other reasons, could result in administrative, civil or criminal liabilities, including repayments, fines or penalties being imposed upon the Corporation, or could lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracting. U.S. Government investigations often take years to complete and many result in no adverse action against the Corporation.

 

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 our property subject to various other lawsuits or proceedings involving environmental protection matters. Due in part to their complexity and pervasiveness, such requirements have resulted in our being involved with related legal proceedings, claims and remediation obligations. The extent of our financial exposure cannot in all cases be reasonably estimated at this time. For information regarding these matters, including current estimates of the amounts that we believe are required for remediation or clean-up to the extent estimable, see “Note 5 – Legal Proceedings and Contingencies” on pages 11 through 14 of this Form 10-Q.

 

In addition, see the “Legal Proceedings” section of the Form 10-K for a description of previously reported matters.

 

37


Table of Contents

Lockheed Martin Corporation

 

Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki