About EDGAR Online | Login
 
Enter your Email for a Free Trial:
The following is an excerpt from a S-4 SEC Filing, filed by MCTI ACQUISITION CORP on 11/23/2005.
Next Section Next Section Previous Section Previous Section
MCTI ACQUISITION CORP - S-4 - 20051123 - LEGAL_PROCEEDINGS

Legal Proceedings

From time to time we are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business or assumed in connection with business acquisitions. In particular, at the time of the Titan acquisition, Titan had a number of pending legal matters and governmental investigations as further discussed in Note 12 to L-3's unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included elsewhere herein. We believe that we are adequately reserved for these liabilities and that there is no litigation that will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. However, we are a party to a number of material litigations, including the matters described below, for which an adverse determination could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

U.S. Government Procurement Regulations and Investigations.

A substantial majority of our revenues are generated from providing products and services under legally binding agreements, or contracts, with U.S. Government customers. The U.S. Government contracts are subject to extensive legal and regulatory requirements, and, from time to time, agencies of the U.S. Government investigate whether such contracts were and are being conducted in accordance with these requirements. We are currently cooperating with the U.S. Government on several investigations, including but not limited to, the investigation regarding L-3's Combat Survivor/Evader Locator (CSEL) program discussed below. We do not anticipate that any of these investigations will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, under U.S. Government procurement regulations, an indictment of us by a federal grand jury could result in us being suspended for a period of time from eligibility for awards of new government contracts. A conviction could result in debarment from contracting with the federal government for a specified term. In addition, all of our U.S. Government contracts are subject to audit and various pricing and cost controls, and include standard provisions for termination for the convenience of the U.S. Government or for default and are subject to cancellation if funds for contracts become unavailable. Foreign government contracts generally include comparable provisions relating to termination for the convenience of the relevant foreign government or default.

Our Interstate Electronics Corporation subsidiary (IEC) is under criminal investigation by the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command. The investigation relates to IEC's role on the CSEL program, on which IEC is a subcontractor to The Boeing Company (Boeing). IEC provides the global positioning system (GPS) modules to Boeing for the CSEL program. The GPS module includes a complex printed wiring board (PWB) that IEC purchased from two suppliers. The investigation appears to be focused on alleged manufacturing deficiencies in the PWBs and IEC's actions when it became aware of the suppliers potential manufacturing problems. We have conducted an internal investigation of this matter using outside counsel and currently believe that no criminal activity occurred. We are cooperating fully with the investigation and have voluntarily recalled all the PWBs and are repairing them as they are received.

Litigation Matters

L-3 Integrated Systems and its predecessors have been involved in a litigation with Kalitta Air arising from a contract to convert Boeing 747 aircraft from passenger configuration to cargo freighters. The lawsuit was brought in the northern district of California on January 31, 1997. The aircraft were modified using Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) issued in 1988 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to Hayes International, Inc. (Hayes/Pemco) as a subcontractor to GATX/Airlog Company (GATX). Between 1988 and 1990, Hayes/Pemco modified five aircraft as a subcontractor to GATX using the STCs. Between 1990 and 1994, Chrysler Technologies Airborne Systems, Inc. (CTAS), a predecessor to L-3 Integrated Systems, performed as a subcontractor to GATX and modified an additional five aircraft using the STCs. Two of the aircraft modified by CTAS were owned by American International Airways, the predecessor to Kalitta Air. In 1996, the FAA

95




determined that the engineering data provided by Hayes/Pemco supporting the STCs was inadequate and issued an Airworthiness Directive that effectively grounded the ten modified aircraft. The Kalitta Air aircraft have not been in revenue service since that date. The matter was tried in January 2001 against GATX and CTAS with the jury finding fault on the part of GATX but rendering a unanimous defense verdict in favor of CTAS. Certain co-defendants had settled prior to trial. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently reversed and remanded the trial court's summary judgment rulings in favor of CTAS regarding a negligence claim by Kalitta Air, which asserts that CTAS as an expert in aircraft modification should have known that the STCs were deficient, and excluding certain evidence at trial. In preparation for retrial, Kalitta Air submitted to us an expert report on damages that calculated Kalitta Air's damages at either $232 million or $602 million, depending on different factual assumptions. We retained experts whose reports indicate that, even in the event of an adverse jury finding on the liability issues at trial, Kalitta Air has already recovered amounts from the other parties to the initial suit that the Company believes more than fully compensated Kalitta Air for any damages it incurred. CTAS' insurance carrier has accepted defense of the matter with a reservation of its right to dispute its obligations under the applicable insurance policy in the event of an adverse jury finding. The retrial began on January 18, 2005 and ended on March 2, 2005 with a deadlocked jury and mistrial. At trial, Kalitta Air claimed damages of $235 million. Although no date has been set for any further proceedings, a second retrial may be necessary in this matter. By order dated July 22, 2005, the Trial Court granted our motion for judgment as a matter of law as to negligence dismissing that claim, denied our motion for judgment as a matter of law as to negligent misrepresentation, and certified the decision for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit has accepted the appeals on all proceedings at the District Court and such proceedings will be stayed pending resolution of the appeals. We believe that we have meritorious defenses and intend to continue to vigorously defend this matter. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an adverse decision could be rendered, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On November 18, 2002, we initiated a proceeding against OSI Systems, Inc. (OSI) in the United States District Court sitting in the Southern District of New York seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that we had fulfilled all of our obligations under a letter of intent with OSI (the "OSI Letter of Intent"). Under the OSI Letter of Intent, we were to negotiate definitive agreements with OSI for the sale of certain businesses we acquired from PerkinElmer, Inc. on June 14, 2002. On February 7, 2003, OSI filed an answer and counterclaims alleging, among other things, that we defrauded OSI, breached obligations of fiduciary duty to OSI and breached our obligations under the OSI Letter of Intent. OSI has provided an expert report that calculated OSI's damages in the case of approximately $49 million, not including punitive damages and interest. Under the OSI Letter of Intent, we proposed selling to OSI the conventional detection business and the ARGUS business that the Company acquired from PerkinElmer, Inc. Negotiations with OSI lasted for almost one year and ultimately broke down over issues regarding, among other things, intellectual property, product-line definitions, allocation of employees and due diligence. A trial has been set for February 2006. We believe that the claims asserted by OSI in its suit are without merit and intend to defend against the OSI claims vigorously. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an adverse decision could be rendered, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

On July 1, 2004, lawsuits were filed on behalf of the estates of 31 Russian children in state courts of Washington, Arizona, California, Florida, New York and New Jersey against Honeywell. Honeywell TCAS, the Company, ACSS, Thales USA and Thales France. The suits are based on facts arising out of the crash over southern Germany of a Bashkirian Airways Tupelov TU 154M aircraft and a DHL Boeing 757 cargo aircraft. On-board the Tupelov aircraft were 12 crew members and 57 passengers, including 45 children. The Boeing aircraft carried a crew of three. Both aircraft were equipped with Honeywell/ACSS Model 2000, Change 7 Traffic Collision and Avoidance Systems. Sensing the other aircraft, the on-board DHL TCAS instructed the DHL pilot to climb, and the Tupelov on-board TCAS instructed the Tupelov pilot to descend. However, the Swiss air traffic controller ordered the Tupelov pilot to climb. The Tupelov pilot disregarded the on-board TCAS and put the Tupelov

96




aircraft into climb striking the DHL aircraft in midair at approximately 35,000 feet. All crew and passengers of both planes were lost. Investigations by the NTSB after the crash revealed that both TCAS units were performing as designed. The suits allege negligence and strict product liability based upon the design of the units and the training provided to resolve conflicting commands and seek compensatory damages. Our insurers have accepted defense of the matter and retained counsel. The matters were consolidated in the Federal Court of New Jersey, which has dismissed the actions on the basis of forum non conveniens.

On April 4, 2005, Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed) filed a lawsuit against L-3 Integrated Systems in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging misappropriation of proprietary information and breach of a license agreement. The lawsuit arises out of L-3 Integrated Systems' pursuit of the Republic of Korea's P-3 Lot II Maritime Patrol Aircraft Program as a subcontractor to Korean Airspace Industries. Lockheed claims that in connection with this subcontracting effort, L-3 Integrated Systems will use certain Lockheed proprietary information in violation of both a prior settlement agreement between Lockheed and the U.S. Government, and a license agreement between Lockheed and L-3 Integrated Systems because L-3 Integrated Systems is acting as a subcontractor (as opposed to a prime contractor) to the Republic of Korea. Lockheed is seeking an injunction prohibiting L-3 Integrated Systems from using the proprietary P-3 data in violation of the existing agreements and unspecified money damages. We believe that the claims asserted by Lockheed in its suit are without merit and intend to defend against the Lockheed claims vigorously.

BROKERAGE PARTNERS