Company: NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP /DE/
CIK: 1133421
SIC: 3812
Filing Date: 2011-02-09 00:00:00

ITEM 1 - BUSINESS
Item 1.
Business
HISTORY AND ORGANIZATION
History
Northrop Grumman Corporation (herein referred to as “Northrop Grumman”, the “company”, “we”, “us”, or “our”) is an integrated enterprise consisting of businesses that address the global security spectrum, from undersea to outer space and into cyberspace. The companies that are part of today’s Northrop Grumman have achieved historic accomplishments, from transporting Charles Lindbergh across the Atlantic to carrying astronauts to the moon’s surface and back.
The company was originally formed as Northrop Corporation in California in 1939 and was reincorporated in Delaware in 1985. From 1994 through 2002, we entered a period of significant expansion through acquisitions of other businesses, most notably:
n
In 1994, Northrop Corporation acquired Grumman Corporation (Grumman) and was renamed Northrop Grumman Corporation. Grumman was a premier military aircraft systems integrator and builder of the Lunar Module that first delivered men to the surface of the moon.
n
In 1996, we acquired the defense and electronics businesses of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a world leader in the development and production of sophisticated radar and other electronic systems for the nation’s defense, civil aviation, and other international and domestic applications.
n
In 2001, we acquired Litton Industries (Litton), a global electronics and information technology enterprise, and one of the nation’s leading full-service design, engineering, construction, and life cycle supporters of major surface ships for the United States (U.S.) Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, and international navies.
n
Also in 2001, we acquired Newport News Shipbuilding (Newport News). Newport News is the nation’s sole designer, builder and refueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and one of only two companies designing and building nuclear-powered submarines.
n
In 2002, we acquired TRW Inc. (TRW), a leading developer of military and civil space systems and satellite payloads, as well as a leading global integrator of complex, mission-enabling systems and services.
Since 2002, other notable acquisitions include Integic Corporation (2005), an information technology provider specializing in enterprise health and business process management solutions and Essex Corporation (2007), a signal processing product and services provider to U.S. intelligence and defense customers. In addition, we divested our Advisory Services Division, TASC, Inc., in 2009. See Business Acquisitions and Business Dispositions in Part II. Item 7.
These and other transactions have shaped us into our present position as a premier provider of technologically advanced, innovative products, services and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information and services and shipbuilding. As prime contractor, principal subcontractor, partner, or preferred supplier, we participate in many high-priority defense and commercial technology programs in the U.S. and abroad. We conduct most of our business with the U.S. Government, principally the Department of Defense (DoD). We also conduct business with local, state, and foreign governments, and domestic and international commercial customers. For a discussion of risks associated with our DoD and foreign operations, see Risk Factors in Part I,

ITEM 1A - RISK FACTORS
Item 1A.
The U.S. Government generally has the ability to terminate our contracts, in whole or in part, without prior notice, for convenience or for default based on performance. If any of our U.S. Government contracts were to be terminated for convenience, we would generally be protected by provisions covering reimbursement for costs incurred on the contracts and profit on those costs, but not the anticipated profit that would have been earned had the contract been completed. In the rare circumstance where a U.S. Government contract does not have such termination protection, we attempt to mitigate the termination risk through other means. Termination resulting from our default may expose us to liability and could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete for contracts. See Risk Factors in Part I, Item 1A.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Certain programs with the U.S. Government that are prohibited by the customer from being publicly discussed in detail are referred to as “restricted” in this Form 10-K. The consolidated financial statements and financial information in this Form 10-K reflect the operating results of restricted programs under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). See Risk Factors in Part I, Item 1A.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Our research and development activities primarily include independent research and development (IR&D) efforts related to government programs. IR&D expenses are included in general and administrative expenses and are generally allocated to U.S. Government contracts. IR&D expenses totaled $603 million, $610 million, and $564 million in 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively. We charge expenses for research and development sponsored by the customer directly to the related contracts.
EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
We believe that we maintain good relations with our 117,100 employees, of which approximately 20 percent are covered by 32 collective bargaining agreements. We negotiated or re-negotiated twelve of our collective bargaining agreements in 2010. These negotiations had no material adverse effect on our results of operations. For risks associated with collective bargaining agreements, see Risk Factors in Part I, Item 1A.
ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
Our manufacturing operations are subject to and affected by federal, state, foreign, and local laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. We provide for the estimated cost to complete environmental remediation where we determine it is probable that we will incur such costs in the future to address environmental impacts at currently or formerly owned or leased operating facilities, or at sites where we are named a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or similarly designated by other environmental agencies. These estimates may change given the inherent difficulty in estimating environmental cleanup costs to be incurred in the future due to the uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, determination of legally responsible parties, and the status of laws, regulations, and their interpretations.
We assess the potential impact on our financial statements by estimating the possible remediation costs that we could reasonably incur on a site-by-site basis. These estimates consider our environmental engineers’ professional judgment and, when necessary, we consult with outside environmental specialists. In most instances, we can only estimate a range of reasonably possible costs. We accrue our best estimate when determinable or the minimum amount when no single amount is more probable. We record accruals for environmental cleanup costs in the accounting period in which it becomes probable we have incurred a liability and the costs can be reasonably estimated. We record insurance recoveries only when we determine that collection is probable. Our environmental remediation accruals do not include any litigation costs related to environmental matters, nor do they include any amounts recorded as asset retirement obligations.
We estimate that at December 31, 2010, the range of reasonably possible future costs for environmental remediation sites is $280 million to $674 million, of which we accrued $109 million in other current liabilities and $207 million in other long-term liabilities in the consolidated statements of financial position. We record environmental accruals on an undiscounted basis. At sites involving multiple parties, we provide environmental accruals based upon our expected share of liability, taking into account the financial viability of other jointly liable parties. We expense or capitalize environmental expenditures as appropriate. Capitalized expenditures relate to long-lived improvements in currently operating facilities. We may have to incur costs in addition to those already estimated and accrued if other PRPs do not pay their allocable share of remediation costs, which could have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. We have made the investments we believe necessary to comply with environmental laws.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
We could be affected by future laws or regulations, including those enacted in response to climate change concerns and other actions known as “green initiatives.” We established a goal of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions over a five-year period through December 31, 2014. To comply with existing green initiatives and our greenhouse gas emissions goal, we expect to incur capital and operating costs, but at this time we do not expect that such costs will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS
We compete with many companies in the U.S. defense industry and the information and services markets for a number of programs, both large and small. In the U.S. defense industry, Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company, Raytheon Company, General Dynamics Corporation, L-3 Communications Corporation, SAIC, and BAE Systems Inc. are our primary competitors. Intense competition and long operating cycles are both key characteristics of our business and the defense industry. It is common in the defense industry for work on major programs to be shared among a number of companies. A company competing to be a prime contractor may, upon ultimate award of the contract to another competitor, become a subcontractor for the ultimate prime contracting company. It is not unusual to compete for a contract award with a peer company and, simultaneously, perform as a supplier to or a customer of that same competitor on other contracts, or vice versa. The nature of major defense programs, conducted under binding contracts, allows companies that perform well to benefit from a level of program continuity not frequently found in other industries.
Our success in the competitive defense industry depends upon our ability to develop and market our products and services, as well as our ability to provide the people, technologies, facilities, equipment, and financial capacity needed to deliver those products and services affordably and efficiently. Like most of our competitors, we are vertically integrated but also have a high reliance on the supply chain. We must continue to maintain dependable sources for raw materials, fabricated parts, electronic components, and major subassemblies. In this increasingly complex manufacturing and systems integration environment, effective oversight of subcontractors and suppliers is vital to our success.
Similarly, there is intense competition among many companies in the information and services markets, which are generally more labor intensive with highly competitive margin rates and contract performance periods of shorter duration. Competitors in the information and services markets include the defense industry participants mentioned above as well as many other large and small entities with specialized expertise. Our ability to successfully compete in the information and services markets depends on a number of factors. The most important factor is the ability to deploy skilled professionals, many requiring security clearances, at competitive prices across the diverse spectrum of these markets. Accordingly, we have implemented various workforce initiatives to ensure our success in attracting, developing and retaining these skilled professionals in sufficient numbers to maintain or improve our competitive position within these markets.
In both the U.S. defense industry and information and services markets, the federal government has recently indicated that it intends to increase industry competition for its future procurement of products and services. This may lead to fewer sole source awards and more emphasis on cost competitiveness and affordability than in the past. In addition, the DoD has announced several initiatives to improve efficiency, refocus priorities and enhance DoD best practices including those used to procure goods and services from defense contractors. See Overview in Part II, Item 7, and Risk Factors in Part I, Item 1A. These new initiatives, when implemented, could result in fewer new opportunities for our industry as a whole, and a reduced opportunity set would in turn intensify competition within the industry as companies compete for a more limited set of new programs.
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
See Part III, Item 10, for information about our executive officers.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
AVAILABLE INFORMATION
Throughout this Form 10-K, we incorporate by reference information from parts of other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC allows us to disclose important information by referring to it in this manner, and you should review this information in addition to the information contained in this report.
Our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and proxy statement for the annual shareholders’ meeting, as well as any amendments to those reports, are available free of charge through our web site as soon as reasonably practicable after we file them with the SEC. You can learn more about us by reviewing our SEC filings in the investor relations page on our web site at www.northropgrumman.com.
The SEC also maintains a web site at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy statements and other information about SEC registrants, including Northrop Grumman. You may also obtain these materials at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. You can obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
Our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows are subject to various risks, many of which are not exclusively within our control, that may cause actual performance to differ materially from historical or projected future performance. We urge you to carefully consider the risk factors described below in evaluating the information contained in this report.
n
We depend heavily on a single customer, the U.S. Government, for a substantial portion of our business, including programs subject to security classification restrictions on information, and changes affecting this customer’s ability to do business with us could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
The funding of U.S. Government programs is subject to congressional budget authorization and appropriation processes. For many programs, Congress appropriates funds on a fiscal year basis even though a program may extend over several fiscal years. Consequently, programs are often only partially funded initially and additional funds are committed only as Congress makes further appropriations. We cannot predict the extent to which total funding and/or funding for individual programs will be included, increased or reduced as part of the 2011 and subsequent budgets ultimately approved by Congress or be included in the scope of separate supplemental appropriations. The entire federal government is currently funded under a Continuing Resolution until March 4, 2011. The impact, severity and duration of the current U.S. economic situation, the sweeping economic plans adopted by the U.S. Government, and pressures on the federal budget could also adversely affect the total funding and/or funding for individual programs. In the event that appropriations for any of our programs becomes unavailable, or is reduced or delayed, our contract or subcontract under such program may be terminated or adjusted by the U.S. Government, which could have a material adverse effect on our future sales under such program, and on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
We also cannot predict the impact of potential changes in priorities due to military transformation and planning and/or the nature of war-related activity on existing, follow-on or replacement programs. A shift of government priorities to programs in which we do not participate and/or reductions in funding for or the termination of programs in which we do participate, unless offset by other programs and opportunities, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
In addition, the U.S. Government generally has the ability to terminate contracts, in whole or in part, without prior notice, for convenience or for default based on performance. In the event of termination for the U.S. Government’s convenience, contractors are generally protected by provisions covering
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
reimbursement for costs incurred on the contracts and profit on those costs but not the anticipated profit that would have been earned had the contract been completed. In the rare circumstance where a U.S. government contract does not have such termination protection, we attempt to mitigate the termination risk through other means. To the extent such means are unavailable or do not fully address the costs incurred or profit on those costs, we could face significant losses from the termination for convenience of a contract that lacks termination protection. Termination by the U.S. Government of a contract for convenience could also result in the cancellation of future work on that program. Termination by the U.S. Government of a contract due to our default could require us to pay for re-procurement costs in excess of the original contract price, net of the value of work accepted from the original contract. Termination of a contract due to our default may expose us to liability and could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete for contracts.
n
As a U.S. Government contractor, we are subject to a number of procurement regulations and could be adversely affected by changes in regulations or any negative findings from a U.S. Government audit or investigation.
U.S. Government contractors must comply with many significant procurement regulations and other requirements. These regulations and requirements, although customary in government contracts, increase our performance and compliance costs. If any such regulations or procurement requirements change, our costs of complying with them could increase and reduce our margins.
We operate in a highly regulated environment and are routinely audited and reviewed by the U.S. Government and its agencies such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). These agencies review our performance under our contracts, our cost structure and our compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards, as well as the adequacy of, and our compliance with, our internal control systems and policies. Systems that are subject to review include, but are not limited to, our accounting systems, purchasing systems, billing systems, property management and control systems, cost estimating systems, compensation systems and management information systems. Any costs found to be unallowable or improperly allocated to a specific contract will not be reimbursed or must be refunded if already reimbursed. If an audit uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, which may include termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines and suspension, or prohibition from doing business with the U.S. Government. Whether or not illegal activities are alleged, the U.S. Government also has the ability to decrease or withhold certain payments when it deems systems subject to its review to be inadequate. In addition, we could suffer serious reputational harm if allegations of impropriety were made against us.
The U.S. Government, from time to time, recommends to its contractors that certain contract prices be reduced, or that costs allocated to certain contracts be disallowed. These recommendations can involve substantial amounts. In the past, as a result of such audits and other investigations and inquiries, we have on occasion made adjustments to our contract prices and the costs allocated to our government contracts.
We are also, from time to time, subject to U.S. Government investigations relating to our operations, and we are subject to or expected to perform in compliance with a vast array of federal laws, including but not limited to the Truth in Negotiations Act, the False Claims Act, the Procurement Integrity Act, Cost Accounting Standards, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations promulgated under the Arms Export Control Act, the Close the Contractor Fraud Loophole Act and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. If we are convicted or otherwise found to have violated the law, or are found not to have acted responsibly as defined by the law, we may be subject to reductions of the value of contracts, contract modifications or termination and the assessment of penalties and fines, compensatory or treble damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Such findings or convictions could also result in suspension or debarment from government contracting. Given our dependence on
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
government contracting, suspension or debarment could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
n
The Department of Defense has announced plans for significant changes to its business practices that could have a material effect on its overall procurement process and adversely impact our current programs and potential new awards.
In September 2010, the DoD announced various initiatives designed to gain efficiencies, refocus priorities and enhance business practices used by the DoD, including those used to procure goods and services from defense contractors. These initiatives are organized into five major areas: affordability and cost growth; productivity and innovation; competition; services acquisition; and processes and bureaucracy. These new initiatives are expected to have a significant impact on the contracting environment in which we do business with our DoD customers and they could have a significant impact on current programs as well as new DoD business opportunities. In his January 6, 2011, announcement regarding future plans, the Secretary of Defense employed some of these initiatives to reduce costs and free up resources for reinvestment. For example, he discussed using multi-year procurement of Navy aircraft, information technology infrastructure streamlining, reductions in outsourcing, consolidation of operating centers and staffs, improving depot and supply chain processes, downsizing intelligence organizations, and eliminating some elements of the DoD’s bureaucracy. Changes to the DoD acquisition system and contracting models could affect whether and, if so, how we pursue certain opportunities and the terms under which we are able to do so. These initiatives are still fairly new and the full impact to our business remains uncertain and subject to the manner in which the DoD implements them.
n
Competition within our markets and an increase in bid protests may reduce our revenues and market share.
We operate in highly competitive markets and our competitors may have more extensive or more specialized engineering, manufacturing and marketing capabilities than we do in some areas. We anticipate higher competition in some of our core markets as a result of the reduction in budgets for many U.S. Government agencies and fewer new program starts. In addition, as discussed in more detail above, projected U.S. defense spending levels for periods beyond the near-term are uncertain and difficult to predict. Changes in U.S. defense spending may limit certain future market opportunities. We are also facing increasing competition in our domestic and international markets from foreign and multinational firms. Additionally, some customers, including the DoD, may turn to commercial contractors, rather than traditional defense contractors, for information technology and other support work. If we are unable to continue to compete successfully against our current or future competitors, we may experience declines in revenues and market share which could negatively impact our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
The competitive environment is also affected by bid protests from unsuccessful bidders on new program awards. Bid protests could result in the award decision being overturned, requiring a re-bid of the contract. Even where a bid protest does not result in a re-bid, the resolution typically extends the time until the contract activity can begin, which may reduce our earnings in the period in which the contract would otherwise have commenced.
n
Our future success depends, in part, on our ability to develop new products and new technologies and maintain technologies, facilities, equipment and a qualified workforce to meet the needs of current and future customers.
The markets in which we operate are characterized by rapidly changing technologies. The product, program and service needs of our customers change and evolve regularly. Accordingly, our success in the competitive defense industry depends upon our ability to develop and market our products and services, as well as our ability to provide the people, technologies, facilities, equipment and financial capacity needed to deliver those products and services with maximum efficiency. If we fail to maintain our competitive position, we could lose a significant amount of future business to our competitors, which would have a material adverse effect on our ability to generate favorable financial results and maintain market share.
Operating results are heavily dependent upon our ability to attract and retain sufficient personnel with requisite skills and/or security clearances. If qualified personnel become scarce, we could experience higher
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
labor, recruiting or training costs in order to attract and retain such employees or could experience difficulty in performing under our contracts if the needs for such employees are unmet.
Approximately 20 percent of our 117,100 employees are covered by an aggregate of 32 collective bargaining agreements. We expect to re-negotiate renewals of four of our collective bargaining agreements in 2011. Collective bargaining agreements generally expire after three to five years and are subject to renegotiation at that time. We may experience difficulties with renewals and renegotiations of existing collective bargaining agreements. If we experience such difficulties, we could incur additional expenses and work stoppages. Any such expenses or delays could adversely affect programs served by employees who are covered by collective bargaining agreements.
n
Many of our contracts contain performance obligations that require innovative design capabilities, are technologically complex, require state-of-the-art manufacturing expertise or are dependent upon factors not wholly within our control. Failure to meet these obligations could adversely affect our profitability and future prospects.
We design, develop and manufacture technologically advanced and innovative products and services applied by our customers in a variety of environments. Problems and delays in development or delivery as a result of issues with respect to design, technology, licensing and patent rights, labor, learning curve assumptions or materials and components could prevent us from achieving contractual requirements.
In addition, our products cannot be tested and proven in all situations and are otherwise subject to unforeseen problems. Examples of unforeseen problems that could negatively affect revenue and profitability include loss on launch of spacecraft, premature failure of products that cannot be accessed for repair or replacement, problems with quality and workmanship, country of origin, delivery of subcontractor components or services and unplanned degradation of product performance. These failures could result, either directly or indirectly, in loss of life or property. Among the factors that may affect revenue and profits could be unforeseen costs and expenses not covered by insurance or indemnification from the customer, diversion of management focus in responding to unforeseen problems, loss of follow-on work, and, in the case of certain contracts, repayment to the government customer of contract cost and fee payments we previously received.
Certain contracts, primarily involving space satellite systems, contain provisions that entitle the customer to recover fees in the event of partial or complete failure of the system upon launch or subsequent deployment for less than a specified period of time. Under such terms, we could be required to forfeit fees previously recognized and/or collected. We have not experienced any material losses in the last decade in connection with such contract performance incentive provisions. However, if we were to experience launch failures or complete satellite system failures in the future, such events could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
n
Contract cost growth on fixed-price and other contracts that cannot be justified as an increase in contract value due from customers exposes us to reduced profitability and the potential loss of future business.
Our operating income is adversely affected when we incur certain contract costs or certain increases in contract costs that cannot be billed to customers. This cost growth can occur if estimates to complete increase due to technical challenges, manufacturing difficulties or delays, or workforce-related issues, or if initial estimates used for calculating the contract cost were incorrect. The cost estimation process requires significant judgment and expertise. Reasons for cost growth may include unavailability or reduced productivity of labor, the nature and complexity of the work to be performed, the timelines and availability of materials, major subcontractor performance and quality of their products, the effect of any delays in performance, availability and timing of funding from the customer, natural disasters and the inability to recover any claims included in the estimates to complete. A significant change in cost estimates on one or
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
more programs could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Most of our contracts are firm fixed-price contracts or flexibly priced contracts. Our risk varies with the type of contract. Flexibly priced contracts include both cost-type and fixed-price incentive contracts. Due to their nature, firm fixed-price contracts inherently have more risk than flexibly priced contracts. Approximately 33 percent of our annual revenues are derived from firm fixed-price contracts - see Contracts in Part II, Item 7. We typically enter into firm fixed-price contracts where costs can be reasonably estimated based on experience. In addition, our contracts contain provisions relating to cost controls and audit rights. Should the terms specified in our contracts not be met, then profitability may be reduced. Fixed-price development work comprises a small portion of our firm fixed-price contracts and inherently has more uncertainty as to future events than production contracts and therefore more variability in estimates of the costs to complete the development stage. As work progresses through the development stage into production, the risks associated with estimating the total costs of the contract are generally reduced. In addition, successful performance of firm fixed-price development contracts that include production units is subject to our ability to control cost growth in meeting production specifications and delivery rates. While management uses its best judgment to estimate costs associated with fixed-price development contracts, future events could result in either upward or downward adjustments to those estimates.
Under a fixed-price incentive contract, the allowable costs incurred by the contractor are subject to reimbursement, but are subject to a cost-share limit which affects profitability. Contracts in Shipbuilding are often fixed-price incentive contracts for production of a first item without a separate development contract. Accordingly, we face the additional difficulty of estimating production costs on a product that has not yet been designed. Further, Shipbuilding sometimes enters into follow-on fixed-price contracts after a significant delay from the first production request, and the passage of time makes it more difficult for us to accurately estimate costs for renewed production.
Under a cost-type contract the allowable costs incurred by the contractor are also subject to reimbursement plus a fee that represents profit. We enter into cost-type contracts for development programs with complex design and technical challenges. These cost-type programs typically have award or incentive fees that are subject to uncertainty and may be earned over extended periods. In these cases the associated financial risks are primarily in lower profit rates or program cancellation if cost, schedule, or technical performance issues arise.
n
Our earnings and margins depend, in part, on our ability to perform under contracts.
When agreeing to contractual terms, our management makes assumptions and projections about future conditions and events, many of which extend over long periods. These projections assess the productivity and availability of labor, the complexity of the work to be performed, the cost and availability of materials, the impact of delayed performance, and the timing of product deliveries. If there is a significant change in one or more of these circumstances or estimates, or if we face unanticipated contract costs, the profitability of one or more of these contracts may be adversely affected.
n
Our earnings and margins depend, in part, on subcontractor performance as well as raw material and component availability and pricing.
We rely on other companies to provide raw materials and major components for our products and rely on subcontractors to produce hardware elements and sub-assemblies and perform some of the services that we provide to our customers. Disruptions or performance problems caused by our subcontractors and vendors could have an adverse effect on our ability to meet our commitments to customers. Our ability to perform our obligations as a prime contractor could be adversely affected if one or more of the vendors or subcontractors are unable to provide the agreed-upon products or materials or perform the agreed-upon services in a timely and cost-effective manner.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Our costs may increase over the term of our contracts. Through cost escalation provisions contained in some of our U.S. Government contracts, we may be protected from increases in material costs to the extent that the increases in our costs are in line with industry indices. However, the difference in basis between our actual material costs and these indices may expose us to cost uncertainty even with these provisions. A significant delay in supply deliveries of our key raw materials required in our production processes could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
In connection with our government contracts, we are required to procure certain materials, components and parts from supply sources approved by the U.S. Government. There are currently several components for which there may be only one supplier. The inability of a sole source supplier to meet our needs could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
n
Our business is subject to disruption caused by natural disasters, environmental disasters and other factors that could adversely affect our profitability and our overall financial position.
We have significant operations located in regions of the U.S. that may be exposed to damaging storms and other natural disasters, such as hurricanes or earthquakes, and environmental disasters, such as oil spills. Although preventative measures may help to mitigate damage, the damage and disruption resulting from natural and environmental disasters may be significant. Should insurance or other risk transfer mechanisms be unavailable or insufficient to recover all costs, we could experience a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
Our suppliers and subcontractors are also subject to natural disasters that could affect their ability to deliver or perform under a contract. Performance failures by our subcontractors due to natural and environmental disasters may adversely affect our ability to perform our obligations on the prime contract, which could reduce our profitability due to damages or other costs that may not be fully recoverable from the subcontractor or from the customer and could result in a termination of the prime contract and have an adverse effect on our ability to compete for future contracts.
Natural disasters can also disrupt our workforce, electrical and other power distribution networks, including computer and internet operation and accessibility, and the critical industrial infrastructure needed for normal business operations. These disruptions could cause adverse effects on our profitability and performance. Environmental disasters, particularly oil spills in waterways and bodies of water used for the transport and testing of our ships, can disrupt the timing of our performance under our contracts with the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard.
n
We use estimates when accounting for contracts. Changes in estimates could affect our profitability and our overall financial position.
Contract accounting requires judgment relative to assessing risks, estimating contract revenues and costs, and making assumptions for schedule and technical issues. Due to the size and nature of many of our contracts, the estimation of total revenues and costs at completion is complicated and subject to many variables. For example, assumptions have to be made regarding the length of time to complete the contract because costs also include expected increases in wages and prices for materials. Similarly, assumptions have to be made regarding the future impact of our self-imposed efficiency initiatives and cost reduction efforts. Incentives, awards or penalties related to performance on contracts are considered in estimating revenue and profit rates, and are recorded when there is sufficient information to assess anticipated performance.
Because of the significance of the judgment and estimation processes described above, it is possible that materially different amounts could be obtained if different assumptions were used or if the underlying circumstances were to change. Changes in underlying assumptions, circumstances or estimates may have a material adverse effect upon future period financial reporting and performance. See Critical Accounting Policies, Estimates, and Judgments in Part II, Item 7.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
n
Our international business exposes us to additional risks.
Although our international business constitutes only 5 percent of total revenues, we are subject to numerous U.S. and foreign laws and regulations, including, without limitation, regulations relating to import-export control, technology transfer restrictions, repatriation of earnings, exchange controls, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the anti-boycott provisions of the U.S. Export Administration Act. Failure by us or our sales representatives or consultants to comply with these laws and regulations could result in administrative, civil, or criminal liabilities and could, in the extreme case, result in suspension or debarment from government contracts or suspension of our export privileges, which could have a material adverse effect on us. Changes in regulation or political environment may affect our ability to conduct business in foreign markets, including investment, procurement and repatriation of earnings.
The services and products we provide internationally, including through the use of subcontractors, are sometimes in countries with unstable governments, in areas of military conflict or at military installations. This increases the risk of an incident resulting in damage or destruction to our products or resulting in injury or loss of life to our employees, subcontractors or other third parties. We maintain insurance to mitigate risk and potential liabilities related to our international operations, but our insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover these claims and liabilities and we may be forced to bear substantial costs arising from those claims. (See additional discussion of possible inadequacy of our insurance coverage below). In addition, any accidents or incidents that occur in connection with our international operations could result in negative publicity for the company, which may adversely affect our reputation and make it more difficult for us to compete for future contracts or result in the loss of existing and future contracts. The impact of these factors is difficult to predict, but any one or more of them could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
n
Our reputation and our ability to do business may be impacted by the improper conduct of employees, agents or business partners.
We have implemented extensive compliance controls, policies and procedures to prevent and detect reckless or criminal acts committed by employees, agents or business partners that would violate the laws of the jurisdictions in which we operate, including laws governing payments to government officials, security clearance breaches, cost accounting and billing, competition and data privacy. However, we cannot ensure that we will prevent all such reckless or criminal acts committed by our employees, agents or business partners. Any improper actions could subject us to civil or criminal investigations and monetary and non-monetary penalties and could have a material adverse effect on our ability to conduct business, our results of operations and our reputation.
n
Our business could be negatively impacted by security threats and other disruptions.
As a defense contractor, we face certain security threats, including threats to our information technology infrastructure and unlawful attempts to gain access to our proprietary or classified information. Our information technology networks and related systems are critical to the smooth operation of our business and essential to our ability to perform day-to-day operations. Loss of security within this critical operational infrastructure could disrupt our operations, require significant management attention and resources and could have a material adverse effect on our performance.
We also manage information technology systems for various customers. While we maintain information security policies and procedures for managing these systems, we generally face the same security threats for these systems as for our own systems. Computer viruses, attempts to gain access to our customers’ data or other electronic security breaches could lead to disruptions in mission critical systems for our customers, unauthorized release of confidential or personally identifiable information and corruption of customer data.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
These events could damage our reputation and lead to financial losses from remedial actions we must take, potential liability to customers and litigation expenses.
n
Our nuclear operations subject us to various environmental, regulatory, financial and other risks.
The development and operation of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, nuclear-powered submarines, nuclear facilities and other nuclear operations subject us to various risks, including:
n
potential liabilities relating to harmful effects on the environment and human health resulting from nuclear operations and the storage, handling and disposal of radioactive materials;
n
unplanned expenditures relating to maintenance, operation, security and repair, including repairs required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
n
reputational harm; and
n
potential liabilities arising out of a nuclear incident whether or not it is within our control.
The U.S. Government provides indemnity protection against specified risks under our contracts pursuant to Public Law 85-804 and the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act for certain of our nuclear operations risks. Our nuclear operations are subject to various safety-related requirements imposed by the U.S. Navy, DoE, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In the event of noncompliance, these agencies may increase regulatory oversight, impose fines or shut down our operations, depending upon the assessment of the severity of the situation. Revised security and safety requirements promulgated by these agencies could necessitate substantial capital and other expenditures. Additionally, while we maintain insurance for certain risks related to transportation of low level nuclear materials and waste, such as contaminated clothing, and for regulatory changes in the health, safety and fire protection areas, there can be no assurances that such insurance will be sufficient to cover our costs in the event of an accident or business interruption relating to our nuclear operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
n
Unforeseen environmental costs could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
Our operations are subject to and affected by a variety of federal, state, local and foreign environmental protection laws and regulations. In addition, we could be affected by future laws or regulations, including those imposed in response to climate change concerns and other actions commonly referred to as “green initiatives.” Compliance with current and future environmental laws and regulations currently requires and is expected to continue to require significant operating and capital costs.
Environmental laws and regulations can impose substantial fines and criminal sanctions for violations, and may require the installation of costly pollution control equipment or operational changes to limit pollution emissions or discharges and/or decrease the likelihood of accidental hazardous substance releases. We also incur, and expect to continue to incur, costs to comply with current federal and state environmental laws and regulations related to the cleanup of pollutants previously released into the environment. In addition, if we were found to be in violation of the Federal Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act, the facility or facilities involved in the violation could be placed by the EPA on the “Excluded Parties List” maintained by the General Services Administration. The listing would continue until the EPA concludes that the cause of the violation had been cured. Listed facilities cannot be used in performing any U.S. Government contract while they are listed by the EPA.
The adoption of new laws and regulations, stricter enforcement of existing laws and regulations, imposition of new cleanup requirements, discovery of previously unknown or more extensive contamination, litigation involving environmental impacts, our ability to recover such costs under previously priced contracts or
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
financial insolvency of other responsible parties could cause us to incur costs in the future that would have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
n
We are subject to various claims and litigation that could ultimately be resolved against us. Resolution of these matters may require material future cash payments and/or future material charges against our operating income.
The size, type and complexity of our business make us highly susceptible to claims and litigation. We are and may become subject to various environmental claims, income tax matters and other litigation, which, if not resolved within established reserves, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. See Legal Proceedings in Part I, Item 3, Critical Accounting Policies, Estimates, and Judgments in Part II, Item 7 and Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8. Any claims and litigation, even if fully indemnified or insured, could negatively impact our reputation among our customers and the public, and make it more difficult for us to compete effectively or obtain adequate insurance in the future.
n
We may be unable to adequately protect our intellectual property rights, which could affect our ability to compete.
We own many U.S. and foreign patents, trademarks, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property. The U.S. Government has rights to use certain intellectual property that we develop in performance of government contracts, and it may use or authorize others to use such intellectual property. Our intellectual property is subject to challenge, invalidation, misappropriation or circumvention by third parties.
We also rely significantly upon proprietary technology, information, processes and know-how that are not protected by patents. We seek to protect this information through trade secret or confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, subcontractors and other parties, as well as through other security measures. These agreements and security measures may not provide meaningful protection for our unpatented proprietary information. In the event of an infringement of our intellectual property rights, a breach of a confidentiality agreement or divulgence of proprietary information, we may not have adequate legal remedies to maintain our intellectual property. Litigation to determine the scope of intellectual property rights, even if ultimately successful, could be costly and could divert management’s attention away from other aspects of our business. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently developed by competitors.
In some instances, we have licensed the proprietary intellectual property of others, but we may be unable in the future to secure the necessary licenses to use such intellectual property on commercially reasonable terms.
n
Our insurance coverage may be inadequate to cover all of our significant risks or our insurers may deny coverage of material losses we incur, which could adversely affect our profitability and overall financial position.
We endeavor to identify and obtain in established markets insurance agreements to cover significant risks and liabilities (including, for example, natural disasters and product liability). Not every risk or liability can be protected by insurance, and, for insurable risks, the limits of coverage reasonably obtainable in the market may not be sufficient to cover all actual losses or liabilities incurred, including for example, a catastrophic earthquake claim. In some, but not all, circumstances, we may receive indemnification from the U.S. Government. Because of the limitations in overall available coverage referred to above, we may have to bear substantial costs for uninsured losses that could have an adverse effect upon our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Additionally, disputes with insurance carriers over coverage may affect the timing of cash flows and, if litigation with the carrier becomes necessary, an outcome unfavorable to us may have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. We commenced legal action against an insurance carrier arising out of a disagreement concerning the coverage of certain losses related to Hurricane Katrina, and another carrier has denied coverage for certain other losses related to
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Hurricane Katrina and advised us that it will seek reimbursement of certain amounts previously advanced by that carrier. See Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8.
n
Changes in future business conditions could cause business investments and/or recorded goodwill to become impaired, resulting in substantial losses and write-downs that would reduce our operating income.
As part of our overall strategy, we may, from time to time, acquire a minority or majority interest in a business. These investments are made upon careful analysis and due diligence procedures designed to achieve a desired return or strategic objective. These procedures often involve certain assumptions and judgment in determining acquisition price. Even after careful integration efforts, actual operating results may vary significantly from initial estimates. Goodwill accounts for approximately half of our recorded total assets. We evaluate goodwill amounts for impairment annually, or when evidence of potential impairment exists. The annual impairment test is based on several factors requiring judgment. Principally, a significant decrease in expected cash flows or changes in market conditions may indicate potential impairment of recorded goodwill. Adverse equity market conditions that result in a decline in market multiples and our stock price could result in an impairment of goodwill and/or other intangible assets. We continue to monitor the recoverability of the carrying value of our goodwill and other long-lived assets. See Critical Accounting Policies, Estimates, and Judgments in Part II, Item 7.
n
Anticipated benefits of mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures or strategic alliances may not be realized.
As part of our overall strategy, we may, from time to time, merge with or acquire businesses, or form joint ventures or create strategic alliances. Whether we realize the anticipated benefits from these transactions depends, in part, upon the integration between the businesses involved, the performance of the underlying products, capabilities or technologies and the management of the transacted operations. Accordingly, our financial results could be adversely affected from unanticipated performance issues, transaction-related charges, amortization of expenses related to intangibles, charges for impairment of long-term assets and partner performance. Although we believe that we have established appropriate and adequate procedures and processes to mitigate these risks, there is no assurance that these transactions will be successful.
n
We are exploring strategic alternatives for our Shipbuilding segment. We cannot assure you that a transaction will result, or that, if completed, we would realize the anticipated benefits thereof.
In July 2010, we announced that we are evaluating strategic alternatives for the Shipbuilding segment, including, but not limited to, a spin-off to our shareholders. In preparation for an anticipated spin-off of the Shipbuilding business to our shareholders, a registration statement on Form 10 for the shares of our wholly owned subsidiary, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., the entity that would hold the shipbuilding business, was initially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in October 2010, with amendments filed in November 2010, December 2010, and January 2011. We cannot assure you that the exploration of these strategic alternatives will result in any transaction. Our ability to complete a transaction involving the Shipbuilding segment in a timely manner, or even at all, could be subject to several factors, including: changes in the company’s operating performance; our ability to obtain any necessary consents or approvals; changes in governmental regulations and policies; and changes in business, political and economic conditions in the United States. As a condition of an anticipated spin-off, we have obtained a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service and expect to receive an opinion of counsel that the spin-off will be tax-free to the company and our shareholders but can give no assurance that any anticipated spin-off will ultimately qualify as a tax-free transaction. If a transaction involving the Shipbuilding segment is delayed for any reason, we may not realize the anticipated benefits, and if a transaction does not occur, we will not realize such benefits. Each of these risks could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
n
Market volatility and adverse capital and credit market conditions may affect our ability to access cost-effective sources of funding and expose us to risks associated with the financial viability of suppliers and the ability of counterparties to perform on financial instruments.
The financial and credit markets recently experienced high levels of volatility and disruption, reducing the availability of credit for certain issuers. Historically, we have occasionally accessed these markets to support certain business activities, including acquisitions, capital expansion projects, refinancing existing debt and issuing letters of credit. In the future, we may not be able to obtain capital market financing or bank financing when needed on favorable terms, or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
A tightening of credit could also adversely affect our suppliers’ ability to obtain financing. Delays in suppliers’ ability to obtain financing, or the unavailability of financing, could cause us to be unable to meet our contract obligations and could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The inability of our suppliers to obtain financing could also result in the need for us to transition to alternate suppliers, which could result in significant incremental cost and delay.
We have executed transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, commercial banks, investment banks and other institutional parties. These transactions expose us to potential credit risk in the event of counterparty default.
n
Pension and medical expenses associated with our retirement benefit plans may fluctuate significantly depending upon changes in actuarial assumptions, future market performance of plan assets, future trends in health care costs and legislative or other regulatory actions.
A substantial portion of our current and retired employee population is covered by pension and post-retirement benefit plans, the costs of which are dependent upon our various assumptions, including estimates of rates of return on benefit related assets, discount rates for future payment obligations, rates of future cost growth and trends for future costs. In addition, funding requirements for benefit obligations of our pension and post-retirement benefit plans are subject to legislative and other government regulatory actions.
Variances from these estimates could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. For example, the recent volatility in the financial markets resulted in lower than expected returns on our pension plan assets in 2008, which resulted in higher pension costs in subsequent years. See Note 17 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8.
Additionally, due to government regulations, pension plan cost recoveries under our government contracts may occur in different periods from when those pension costs are accrued for financial statement purposes or when pension funding is made. Timing differences between pension costs accrued for financial statement purposes or when pension funding occurs compared to when such costs are recoverable as allowable costs under our government contracts could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow from operations. In May 2010, the U.S. Cost Accounting Standards Board published a proposed rulemaking that, if adopted, could provide a framework to partially harmonize these funding timing differences. See Overview - Industry Factors, Recent Developments in U.S. Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Pension Recovery Rules in Part II, Item 7 for further discussion.
n
Unanticipated changes in our tax provisions or exposure to additional income tax liabilities could affect our profitability and cash flow.
We are subject to income taxes in the U.S. and many foreign jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining our worldwide provision for income taxes. In the ordinary course of business, there are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. In addition, timing differences in the recognition of income from contracts for financial statement purposes and for income tax regulations can cause uncertainty with respect to the timing of income tax payments which can have a
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
significant impact on cash flow in a particular period. Furthermore, changes in applicable domestic or foreign income tax laws and regulations, or their interpretation, could result in higher or lower income tax rates assessed or changes in the taxability of certain sales or the deductibility of certain expenses, thereby affecting our income tax expense and profitability. The final determination of any tax audits or related litigation could be materially different from our historical income tax provisions and accruals. Additionally, changes in our tax rate as a result of a change in the mix of earnings in countries with differing statutory tax rates, changes in our overall profitability, changes in tax legislation, changes in the valuation of deferred tax assets and liabilities, changes in differences between financial reporting income and taxable income, the results of audits and the examination of previously filed tax returns by taxing authorities and continuing assessments of our tax exposures could impact our tax liabilities and affect our income tax expense, profitability and cash flow.

ITEM 1B - UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
We have no unresolved comments from the SEC.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS AND PROJECTIONS
Statements in this Form 10-K and the information we are incorporating by reference, other than statements of historical fact, constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” “project,” “forecast,” “believe,” “estimate,” “outlook,” “anticipate,” “trends” and similar expressions generally identify these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based upon assumptions, expectations, plans and projections that are believed valid when made. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and inherently involve a wide range of risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Specific factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, those identified under Risk Factors in Part I, Item 1A and other important factors disclosed in this report and from time to time in our other filings with the SEC.
You are urged to consider the limitations on, and risks associated with, forward-looking statements and not unduly rely on the accuracy of predictions contained in such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this report or, in the case of any document incorporated by reference, the date of that document. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

ITEM 2 - PROPERTIES
Item 2. Properties
At December 31, 2010, we owned or leased approximately 54 million square feet of floor space at approximately 767 separate locations, primarily in the U.S., for manufacturing, warehousing, research and testing, administration and various other uses. At December 31, 2010, we leased to third parties approximately 622,000 square feet of our owned and leased facilities, and had vacant floor space of approximately 417,000 square feet.
At December 31, 2010, we had major operations at the following locations:
Aerospace Systems - Carson, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Mojave, Palmdale, Redondo Beach, and San Diego, CA; Melbourne and St. Augustine, FL; Bethpage, NY; and Clearfield, UT.
Electronic Systems - Azusa, Sunnyvale and Woodland Hills, CA; Norwalk, CT; Apopka, FL; Rolling Meadows, IL; Annapolis, Elkridge, Halethorpe, Linthicum and Sykesville, MD; Williamsville, NY; Cincinnati, OH; Salt Lake City, UT; and Charlottesville, VA. Locations outside the U.S. include France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom.
Information Systems - Huntsville, AL; Carson, McClellan, Redondo Beach, San Diego, and San Jose, CA; Aurora and Colorado Springs CO; Washington D.C.; Annapolis Junction and Columbia, MD; Bellevue, NE; and Chantilly, Chester, Dahlgren, Fairfax, Herndon, McLean, and Reston, VA.
Shipbuilding - San Diego, CA; Avondale, LA; Gulfport and Pascagoula, MS; and Hampton, Newport News, and Suffolk, VA.
Technical Services - Sierra Vista, AZ; Warner Robins, GA; Lake Charles, LA; and Herndon, VA.
Corporate and other locations - Los Angeles, CA; Morris Plains, NJ; York, PA; Irving, TX; and Arlington, Falls Church and Lebanon, VA. Locations outside the U.S. include Canada.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
The following is a summary of our floor space at December 31, 2010:
We maintain our properties in good operating condition. We believe that the productive capacity of our properties is adequate to meet current contractual requirements and those for the foreseeable future.
In January 2010, we announced our decision to move our principal executive offices from Los Angeles, California to the Washington D.C. area. In the fourth quarter of 2010, we purchased an existing 334,407 square foot building located at 2980 Fairview Park Drive, Falls Church, Virginia, as the new location for our principal executive offices and expect to initiate operations there in the summer of 2011. We believe this move will enable us to better serve our customers. Although we are moving some corporate staff from Los Angeles, the state of California remains a significant business location for us.

ITEM 3 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
We have provided information about certain legal proceedings in which we are involved in Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8.
In addition to the matters disclosed in Note 15, we are a party to various investigations, lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business, and based on information available to us, we do not believe at this time that any such additional proceedings will individually, or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. For further information on the risks we face from existing and future investigations, lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings, please see Risk Factors in Part I, Item 1A, of this report.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
PART II

ITEM 4 - RESERVED

ITEM 5 - MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY
Item 5.
Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
(a) Market Information.
Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low closing sale prices of our common stock as reported in the consolidated reporting system for the New York Stock Exchange Composite Transactions:
(b) Holders.
The approximate number of common stockholders was 32,388 as of February 7, 2011.
(c) Dividends.
Quarterly dividends per common share for the most recent two years are as follows:
Common Stock
We have 800,000,000 shares authorized at a $1 par value per share, of which 290,956,752 shares and 306,865,201 shares were outstanding as of December 31, 2010, and 2009, respectively.
Preferred Stock
We have 10,000,000 shares authorized at a $1 par value per share, of which no shares were issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2010, and 2009.
On February 20, 2008, our board of directors approved the redemption of the 3.5 million shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock on April 4, 2008. Substantially all of the preferred shares were converted into common stock at the election of stockholders prior to the redemption date. All remaining non converted shares were redeemed on the redemption date. We issued approximately 6.4 million shares of common stock as a result of the conversion and redemption.
(d) Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
Our Annual Meeting of Stockholders will be held on May 18, 2011, in Chantilly, Virginia.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
(e) Stock Performance Graph.
COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE FIVE YEAR TOTAL RETURN
AMONG NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, THE S&P 500 INDEX,
AND THE S&P AEROSPACE & DEFENSE INDEX
(1)
Assumes $100 invested at the close of business on December 31, 2005, in Northrop Grumman Corporation common stock, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index, and the S&P Aerospace Defense Index.
(2)
The cumulative total return assumes reinvestment of dividends.
(3)
The S&P Aerospace Defense Index is comprised of The Boeing Company, General Dynamics Corporation, Goodrich Corporation, Honeywell International Inc., ITT Corporation, L-3 Communications, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Precision Castparts Corporation, Raytheon Company, Rockwell Collins, Inc., and United Technologies Corporation.
(4)
The total return is weighted according to market capitalization of each company at the beginning of each year.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
(f) Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers.
We have summarized our repurchases of common stock during the three months ended December 31, 2010, in the table below.
(1)
On June 16, 2010, our board of directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $2.0 billion of our common stock. As of December 31, 2010, we had $1.8 billion remaining under this authorization for share repurchases.
Share repurchases take place at management’s discretion or under pre-established, non-discretionary programs from time to time, depending on market conditions, in the open market, and in privately negotiated transactions. We retire our common stock upon repurchase and have not made any purchases of common stock other than in connection with these publicly announced repurchase programs.
(2)
Includes commissions paid.
(g) Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans.
For a description of securities authorized under our equity compensation plans, see Note 18 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION

ITEM 6 - SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
Item 6.
Selected Financial Data
The data presented in the following table is derived from the audited consolidated financial statements and other information adjusted to reflect the effects of discontinued operations. See also Business Acquisitions and Business Dispositions in Part II,

ITEM 7 - MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Item 7.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
OVERVIEW
Business
We provide technologically advanced, innovative products, services, and integrated solutions in aerospace, electronics, information and services and shipbuilding to our global customers. We participate in many high-priority defense and commercial technology programs in the United States (U.S.) and abroad as a prime contractor, principal subcontractor, partner, or preferred supplier. We conduct most of our business with the U.S. Government, principally the Department of Defense (DoD). We also conduct business with local, state, and foreign governments and domestic and international commercial customers.
Notable Events
Certain notable events or activities affecting our 2010 consolidated financial results included the following:
Significant financial events for the year ended December 31,
n
Recorded $113 million pre-tax charge related to the winding down of our shipbuilding operations at the Avondale, Louisiana facility.
n
Recorded $231 million pre-tax charge related to the redemption of outstanding debt
n
Recognized net tax benefits of $296 million in connection with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) settlement on our tax returns for years 2004 through 2006.
n
Contributed voluntary pension funding amounts totaling $830 million.
n
Issued $1.5 billion of unsecured senior debt obligations.
n
Paid $1.1 billion to repurchase outstanding debt securities (including $231 million in premiums paid).
n
Repurchased 19.7 million common shares for $1.2 billion.
n
Increased quarterly stock dividend from $0.43 per share to $0.47 per share.
Other notable events for the year ended December 31,
n
Announced in July the decision to explore strategic alternatives for the Shipbuilding business. In preparation for an anticipated spin-off of the Shipbuilding business to the company’s shareholders, a registration statement on Form 10 for the shares of Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII or the Shipbuilding business) was initially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in October 2010, with amendments filed in November 2010, December 2010 and January 2011.
n
Reached agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia related to the Virginia IT outsourcing contract (VITA).
n
Authorized new share repurchases of up to $2.0 billion.
Outlook
Beginning with the credit crisis of 2008 through the present, the United States and global economies have experienced a period of substantial economic uncertainty and turmoil, and the related financial markets have been characterized by significant volatility. While the financial markets have begun to stabilize and improve in 2009 and 2010, the U.S. and global economies continue to struggle as a result of high levels of national debt and historic levels of borrowing to support stimulus and financial support spending.
Current levels of deficit spending are at high levels and likely are unsustainable for the U.S. and several of its allies, and we expect that U.S. and allied government defense spending may come under increasing pressure as governments search for ways to reduce deficits and national debts. Defense Secretary Gates recently proposed a baseline fiscal 2012 defense budget of $553 billion, which is $6 billion higher than the fiscal 2011 budget request, but $13 billion less than previously planned. Under this budget proposal, the overall defense budget will decline by $78 billion over a five year period beginning in fiscal 2012 from the previous plan, and will include program cancellations and restructurings, including reducing the number of joint strike fighters from 449 to 325 jets
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
over that period. Northrop Grumman is one of the largest subcontractors on the program, and if approved by Congress, the reduction would impact our revenues.
Secretary Gates also outlined future opportunities for which we could compete, including a next generation nuclear capable long-range bomber, additional F/A-18 E/F aircraft to offset the reduction in the aircraft, as well as numerous opportunities to apply our unmanned airborne technologies and capabilities and our broad sensor technologies to new products and to upgrade several existing platforms.
While the real rate of growth in the top line defense budget may be slowing for the first time since 9/11, the U.S. Government’s budgetary process continues to give us good visibility regarding future spending and the threat areas that it is addressing. We believe that our current contracts, and our strong backlog of previously awarded contracts align well with our customer’s future needs, and this provides us with good insight regarding future cash flows from our businesses. Nonetheless, we recognize that no business is immune to the current economic situation and new policy initiatives could adversely affect future defense spending levels, which could lower our expected future revenues. Certain programs in which we participate may be subject to potential reductions due to this slower rate of growth in the U.S. defense budget and the utilization of funds to support the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Liquidity Trends - In light of the ongoing economic situation, we have evaluated our future liquidity needs, both from a short-term and long-term perspective. We expect that cash on hand at the beginning of the year plus cash generated from operations and cash available under credit lines will be sufficient in 2011 to service debt, finance capital expansion projects, pay federal, foreign, and state income taxes, fund pension and other post-retirement benefit plans, and continue paying dividends to shareholders. We have a committed $2 billion revolving credit facility, with a maturity date of August 10, 2012, that can be accessed on a same-day basis.
We believe we can obtain additional capital to provide for long-term liquidity, if necessary, from such sources as the public or private capital markets, the sale of assets, sale and leaseback of operating assets, and leasing rather than purchasing new assets. We have an effective shelf registration statement on file with the SEC. See Liquidity and Capital Resources below for further discussions about our financing activities.
Industry Factors
We are subject to the unique characteristics of the U.S. defense industry as a monopsony, whereby demand for our products and services comes primarily from one customer, and by certain elements peculiar to our own business mix.
Recent Developments in U.S. Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Pension Recovery Rules - On May 10, 2010, the CAS Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that if adopted would provide a framework to partially harmonize the CAS rules with the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) funding requirements. The NPRM would “harmonize” by mitigating the mismatch between CAS costs and PPA-amended Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) minimum funding requirements. Until the final rule is published, and to the extent that the final rule does not completely eliminate mismatches between ERISA funding requirements and CAS pension costs, government contractors maintaining defined benefit pension plans will continue to experience a timing mismatch between required contributions and pension expenses recoverable under CAS. The final rule is expected to be issued in 2011 and to apply to contracts starting the year following the award of the first CAS covered contract after the effective date of the new rule. This would mean the rule would apply to our contracts in 2012. We anticipate that contractors will be entitled to an equitable adjustment for any additional CAS contract costs resulting from the final rule.
Economic Opportunities, Challenges, and Risks
The United States continues to face a complex and rapidly changing national security environment, while simultaneously addressing domestic economic challenges such as unemployment, federal budget deficits and the growing national debt. The U.S. Government’s investment in capabilities that respond to constantly evolving threats is increasingly being balanced against the need to address domestic economic challenges. We believe that
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
the U.S. Government will continue to place a high priority on defense spending and national security, as well as economic challenges, and will continue to invest in sophisticated systems providing long-range surveillance and intelligence, battle management, precision strike, and strategic agility.
The U.S. Government faces the additional challenge of recapitalizing equipment and rebuilding readiness while also pursuing modernization and reducing overhead and inefficiency. The DoD has announced several initiatives to improve efficiency, refocus priorities and enhance DoD business practices including those used to procure goods and services from defense contractors.
The DoD initiatives are organized into five major areas: affordability and cost growth; productivity and innovation; competition; services acquisition; and processes and bureaucracy. Initial plans resulting from these initiatives were announced in early 2010 and the defense department expects that these initiatives will generate $100 billion in savings. On January 6, 2011, Secretary Gates provided initial details on fiscal year 2012 defense budget and programmatic plans and elaborated on the allocation of the $100 billion in expected savings from efficiency initiatives. The Secretary described plans to allocate $28 billion for increased operating costs and $70 billion for investment in high priority capabilities. In addition to the efficiency savings, the DoD plans to reduce defense spending from its prior plans by $78 billion over the next five fiscal years.
At the date of this report, the fiscal year 2012 defense budget has not been submitted by the President and Congress had not yet passed a baseline fiscal year 2011 defense budget or any of the appropriations funding bills relating to our customer base. As a result, the U.S. Government is currently operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR) that funds programs and services at fiscal year 2010 levels. The CR is set to expire on March 4, 2011, after which Congress will either pass a new appropriations bill or extend a CR. The latter case would likely fund programs at fiscal year 2010 levels and would affect the profitability of some of our programs and potentially delay new awards. We anticipate continued spirited debate over defense spending in 2011 as part of a larger dialog around the federal deficit and potential cuts in government spending. Budget decisions made in this environment could have long-term consequences for our company and the entire defense industry.
Although reductions to certain programs in which we participate or for which we expect to compete are always possible, we believe that spending on recapitalization, modernization and maintenance of defense and homeland security assets will continue to be a national priority. Future defense spending is expected to include the development and procurement of new manned and unmanned military platforms and systems along with advanced electronics and software to enhance the capabilities of individual systems and provide for the real-time integration of individual surveillance, information management, strike, and battle management platforms. Given the current era of irregular warfare, we expect an increase in investment in persistent awareness with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) systems, cyber warfare, and expansion of information available for the warfighter to make timely decisions. Other significant new competitive opportunities include long range strike, directed energy applications, missile defense, satellite communications systems, restricted programs, cybersecurity, technical services and information technology contracts, and numerous international and homeland security programs.
Prime contracts with various agencies of the U.S. Government and subcontracts with other prime contractors are subject to numerous procurement and other regulations, including the False Claims Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations promulgated under the Arms Export Control Act. Noncompliance found by any one agency could result in fines, penalties, debarment, or suspension from receiving contracts with all U.S. Government agencies. We could experience material adverse effects on our business operations if we or a portion of our business were suspended or debarred.
We could be affected by future laws or regulations, including those enacted in response to climate change concerns and other actions known as “green initiatives.” We recently established a goal of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions over a five-year period through December 31, 2014. To comply with existing green initiatives and our greenhouse gas emissions goal, we expect to incur capital and operating costs, but at this time
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
we do not expect that such costs will have a material adverse effect upon our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
See Risk Factors located in Part I, Item 1A for a more complete description of risks faced by us and the defense industry.
BUSINESS ACQUISITIONS
2009 - We acquired Sonoma Photonics, Inc., as well as assets from Swift Engineering’s Killer Bee Unmanned Air Systems product line in April 2009 for an aggregate amount of approximately $33 million. The operating results from the date of acquisition are reported in the Aerospace Systems segment from the date of acquisition.
2008 - We acquired 3001 International, Inc. (3001 Inc.) in October 2008 for approximately $92 million in cash. 3001 Inc. provides geospatial data production and analysis, including airborne imaging, surveying, mapping and geographic information systems for U.S. and international government intelligence, defense and civilian customers. The operating results of 3001 Inc. are reported in the Information Systems segment from the date of acquisition.
BUSINESS DISPOSITIONS
2009 - We sold our Advisory Services Division (ASD) in December 2009, for $1.65 billion in cash to an investor group led by General Atlantic, LLC and affiliates of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., and recognized a gain of $15 million, net of taxes. ASD was a business unit comprised of the assets and liabilities of TASC, Inc., its wholly-owned subsidiary TASC Services Corporation, and certain contracts carved out from other businesses also in Information Systems that provide systems engineering technical assistance (SETA) and other analysis and advisory services. Sales for ASD in the years ended December 31, 2009, and 2008, were approximately $1.5 billion, and $1.6 billion, respectively. The assets, liabilities and operating results of this business unit are reported as discontinued operations in the consolidated financial statements for all periods presented.
2008 - We sold our Electro-Optical Systems (EOS) business in April 2008 for $175 million in cash to L-3 Communications Corporation and recognized a gain of $19 million, net of taxes. EOS, formerly a part of the Electronic Systems segment, produces night vision and applied optics products. Sales for this business through April 2008 were approximately $53 million. The assets, liabilities and operating results of this business are reported as discontinued operations in the consolidated financial statements for all periods presented.
Discontinued Operations - Earnings for the businesses classified within discontinued operations (primarily as a result of the sale of ASD discussed above) were as follows:
CONTRACTS
We generate the majority of our business from long-term government contracts for development, production, and support activities. Government contracts typically include the following cost elements: direct material, labor
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
and subcontracting costs, and certain indirect costs including allowable general and administrative costs. Unless otherwise specified in a contract, costs billed to contracts with the U.S. Government are determined under the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and CAS regulations as allowable and allocable costs. Examples of costs incurred by us and not billed to the U.S. Government in accordance with the requirements of the FAR and CAS regulations include, but are not limited to, certain legal costs, lobbying costs, charitable donations, interest expense and advertising costs.
Our long-term contracts typically fall into one of two broad categories:
Flexibly Priced Contracts - Includes both cost-type and fixed-price incentive contracts. Cost-type contracts provide for reimbursement of the contractor’s allowable costs incurred plus a fee that represents profit. Cost-type contracts generally require that the contractor use its best efforts to accomplish the scope of the work within some specified time and some stated dollar limitation. Fixed-price incentive contracts also provide for reimbursement of the contractor’s allowable costs, but are subject to a cost-share limit which affects profitability. Fixed-price incentive contracts effectively become firm fixed-price contracts once the cost-share limit is reached.
Firm Fixed-Price Contracts - A firm fixed-price contract is a contract in which the specified scope of work is agreed to for a price that is a pre-determined, negotiated amount and not generally subject to adjustment regardless of costs incurred by the contractor. Time-and-materials contracts are considered firm fixed-price contracts as they specify a fixed hourly rate for each labor hour charged.
The following table summarizes 2010 revenue recognized by contract type and customer:
Contract Fees - Negotiated contract fee structures, for both flexibly priced and fixed-price contracts include, but are not limited to: fixed-fee amounts, cost sharing arrangements to reward or penalize for either under or over cost target performance, positive award fees, and negative penalty arrangements. Profit margins may vary materially depending on the negotiated contract fee arrangements, percentage-of-completion of the contract, the achievement of performance objectives, and the stage of performance at which the right to receive fees, particularly under incentive and award fee contracts, is finally determined.
Award Fees - Certain contracts contain provisions consisting of award fees based on performance criteria such as cost, schedule, quality, and technical performance. Award fees are determined and earned based on an evaluation by the customer of the company’s performance against such negotiated criteria. Fees that can be reasonably assured and reasonably estimated are recorded over the performance period of the contract. Award fee contracts are used in certain of our operating segments. Examples of significant long-term contracts with substantial negotiated award fee amounts are the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aircraft System and the majority of satellite contracts.
Compliance and Monitoring - We monitor our policies and procedures with respect to our contracts on a regular basis to ensure consistent application under similar terms and conditions as well as compliance with all applicable government regulations. In addition, costs incurred and allocated to contracts with the U.S. Government are routinely audited by the Defense Contract Audit Agency.
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES, ESTIMATES, AND JUDGMENTS
Revenue Recognition
Overview - We derive the majority of our business from long-term contracts for the production of goods and services provided to the federal government, which are accounted for in conformity with accounting principles
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) for construction-type and production-type contracts and federal government contractors. We classify contract revenues as product sales or service revenues depending on the predominant attributes of the relevant underlying contract. We also enter into contracts that are not associated with the federal government, such as contracts to provide certain services to non-federal government customers. We account for those contracts in accordance with the relevant GAAP revenue recognition principles.
We consider the nature of these contracts and the types of products and services provided when determining the proper accounting method for a particular contract.
Percentage-of-Completion Accounting - We generally recognize revenues from our long-term contracts under the cost-to-cost or the units-of-delivery measures of the percentage-of-completion method of accounting. The percentage-of-completion method recognizes income as work on a contract progresses. For most contracts, sales are calculated based on the percentage of total costs incurred in relation to total estimated costs at completion of the contract. For certain contracts with large up-front purchases of material, primarily in the Shipbuilding segment, sales are generally calculated based on the percentage that direct labor costs incurred bear to total estimated direct labor costs. The units-of-delivery measure is a modification of the percentage-of-completion method, which recognizes revenues as deliveries are made to the customer generally using unit sales values in accordance with the contract terms. We estimate profit as the difference between total estimated revenue and total estimated cost of a contract and recognize that profit over the life of the contract based on deliveries.
The use of the percentage-of-completion method depends on our ability to make reasonably dependable cost estimates for the design, manufacture, and delivery of our products and services. Such costs are typically incurred over a period of several years, and estimation of these costs requires the use of judgment. We record sales under cost-type contracts as costs are incurred.
Many contracts contain positive and negative profit incentives based upon performance relative to predetermined targets that may occur during or subsequent to delivery of the product. These incentives take the form of potential additional fees to be earned or penalties to be incurred. Incentives and award fees that can be reasonably assured and reasonably estimated are recorded over the performance period of the contract. Incentives and award fees that are not reasonably assured or cannot be reasonably estimated are recorded when awarded or at such time as a reasonable estimate can be made.
Other changes in estimates of contract sales, costs, and profits are recognized using the cumulative catch-up method of accounting. This method recognizes in the current period the cumulative effect of the changes on current and prior periods. Hence, the effect of the changes on future periods of contract performance is recognized as if the revised estimate had been the original estimate. A significant change in an estimate on one or more contracts could have a material effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.
Certain Service Contracts - We generally recognize revenue under contracts to provide services to non-federal government customers when services are performed. Service contracts include operations and maintenance contracts, and outsourcing-type arrangements, primarily in Technical Services and Information Systems. We generally recognize revenue under such contracts on a straight-line basis over the period of contract performance, unless evidence suggests that the revenue is earned or the obligations are fulfilled in a different pattern. Costs incurred under these service contracts are expensed as incurred, except that direct and incremental set-up costs are capitalized and amortized over the life of the agreement. Operating profit related to such service contracts may fluctuate from period to period, particularly in the earlier phases of the contract.
Contracts that include more than one type of product or service are accounted for under the relevant GAAP guidance for revenue arrangements with multiple-elements. Accordingly, for applicable arrangements, revenue recognition includes the proper identification of separate units of accounting and the allocation of revenue across all elements based on relative fair values.
Cost Estimation - The cost estimation process requires significant judgment and is based upon the professional knowledge and experience of our engineers, program managers, and financial professionals. Factors that are
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
considered in estimating the work to be completed and ultimate contract recovery include the availability, productivity and cost of labor, the nature and complexity of the work to be performed, the effect of change orders, the availability of materials, the effect of any delays in performance, the availability and timing of funding from the customer, and the recoverability of any claims included in the estimates to complete. A significant change in an estimate on one or more contracts could have a material effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. We update our contract cost estimates at least annually and more frequently as determined by events or circumstances. We generally review and reassess our cost and revenue estimates for each significant contract on a quarterly basis.
We record a provision for the entire loss on the contract in the period the loss is determined when estimates of total costs to be incurred on a contract exceed estimates of total revenue to be earned. We offset loss provisions first against costs that are included in unbilled accounts receivable or inventoried assets, with any remaining amount reflected in liabilities.
Purchase Accounting and Goodwill
Overview - We allocate the purchase price of an acquired business to the underlying tangible and intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed based upon their respective fair market values, with the excess recorded as goodwill. Such fair market value assessments require judgments and estimates that can be affected by contract performance and other factors over time, which may cause final amounts to differ materially from original estimates. Adjustments to the fair value of purchased assets and liabilities after the measurement period are recognized in net earnings.
Acquisition Accruals - We establish certain accruals in connection with indemnities and other contingencies from our acquisitions and divestitures. We have recorded these accruals and subsequent adjustments during the purchase price allocation period for acquisitions and as events occur for divestitures. The accruals were determined based upon the terms of the purchase or sales agreements and, in most cases, involve a significant degree of judgment. We recorded these accruals in accordance with our interpretation of the terms of the purchase or sale agreements, known facts, and an estimation of probable future events based on our experience.
Tests for Impairment - We perform impairment tests for goodwill as of November 30th of each year, or when evidence of potential impairment exists. We record a charge to operations when we determine that an impairment has occurred. In order to test for potential impairment, we use a discounted cash flow analysis, corroborated by comparative market multiples where appropriate.
The principal factors used in the discounted cash flow analysis requiring judgment are the projected results of operations, weighted average cost of capital (WACC), and terminal value assumptions. The WACC takes into account the relative weights of each component of our consolidated capital structure (equity and debt) and represents the expected cost of new capital adjusted as appropriate to consider lower risk profiles associated with longer-term contracts and barriers to market entry. The terminal value assumptions are applied to the final year of the discounted cash flow model.
As a result of our announcement to wind down operations at Shipbuilding’s Avondale, Louisiana facility (see Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8), we performed an interim impairment test on Shipbuilding’s goodwill as of June 30, 2010, and concluded that the estimated fair value of the Shipbuilding reporting unit was substantially in excess of its carrying value.
The results of our annual goodwill impairment test as of November 30, 2010, indicated that the estimated fair value of all reporting units were substantially in excess of their carrying values.
Due to the many variables inherent in the estimation of a business’s fair value and the relative size of our recorded goodwill, differences in assumptions may have a material effect on the results of our impairment analysis.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Litigation, Commitments, and Contingencies
Overview - We are subject to a range of claims, lawsuits, environmental and income tax matters, and administrative proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Estimating liabilities and costs associated with these matters requires judgment and assessment based upon professional knowledge and experience of management and our internal and external legal counsel. In accordance with our practices relating to accounting for contingencies, we record amounts as charges to earnings after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each matter known to us, including any settlement offers, and determine that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The ultimate resolution of any such exposure to us may vary from earlier estimates as further facts and circumstances become known. When a range of costs is possible and no amount within that range is a better estimate than another, we record the minimum amount of the range.
U.S. Government Claims - From time to time, our customers advise us of ordinary course claims and penalties concerning certain potential disallowed costs. When such findings are presented, we engage U.S. Government representatives in discussions to enable us to evaluate the merits of these claims as well as to assess the amounts being claimed. Where appropriate, provisions are made to reflect our expected exposure to the matters raised by the U.S. Government representatives and such provisions are reviewed on a quarterly basis for sufficiency based on the most recent information available.
Environmental Accruals - We are subject to the environmental laws and regulations of the jurisdictions in which we conduct operations. We record a liability for the costs of expected environmental remediation obligations when we determine that it is probable we will incur such costs, and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. When a range of costs is possible and no amount within that range is a better estimate than another, we record the minimum amount of the range.
Factors which could result in changes to the assessment of probability, range of estimated costs, and environmental accruals include: modification of planned remedial actions, increase or decrease in the estimated time required to remediate, discovery of more extensive contamination than anticipated, results of efforts to involve other legally responsible parties, financial insolvency of other responsible parties, changes in laws and regulations or contractual obligations affecting remediation requirements, and improvements in remediation technology.
Litigation Accruals - Litigation accruals are recorded as charges to earnings when management, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each matter, including any settlement offers, has determined that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The ultimate resolution of any exposure to us may vary from earlier estimates as further facts and circumstances become known to us.
Uncertain Tax Positions - Tax positions meeting the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold may be recognized or continue to be recognized in the financial statements. The timing and amount of accrued interest is determined by the applicable tax law associated with an underpayment of income taxes. If a tax position does not meet the minimum statutory threshold to avoid payment of penalties, we recognize an expense for the amount of the penalty in the period the tax position is claimed in our tax return. We recognize interest accrued related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense. Penalties, if probable and reasonably estimable, are recognized as a component of income tax expense. See Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8. Under existing GAAP, prior to January 1, 2009, changes in accruals associated with uncertainties arising from the resolution of pre-acquisition contingencies of acquired businesses were charged or credited to goodwill; effective January 1, 2009, such changes will be recorded to income tax expense. Adjustments to other tax accruals are generally recorded in earnings in the period they are determined.
Retirement Benefits
Overview - We annually evaluate assumptions used in determining projected benefit obligations and the fair values of plan assets for our pension plans and other post-retirement benefits plans in consultation with our outside
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
actuaries. In the event that we determine that plan amendments or changes in the assumptions are warranted, future pension and post-retirement benefit expenses could increase or decrease.
Assumptions - The principal assumptions that have a significant effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations are the discount rate, the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets, the health care cost trend rate and the estimated fair market value of plan assets. For certain plan assets where the fair market value is not readily determinable, such as real estate, private equity, and hedge funds, estimates of fair value are determined using the best information available.
Discount Rate - The discount rate represents the interest rate that is used to determine the present value of future cash flows currently expected to be required to settle the pension and post-retirement benefit obligations. The discount rate is generally based on the yield of high-quality corporate fixed-income investments. At the end of each year, the discount rate is primarily determined using the results of bond yield curve models based on a portfolio of high quality bonds matching the notional cash inflows with the expected benefit payments for each significant benefit plan. Taking into consideration the factors noted above, our weighted-average pension composite discount rate was 5.76 percent at December 31, 2010, and 6.03 percent at December 31, 2009. Holding all other assumptions constant, and since net actuarial gains and losses were in excess of the 10 percent accounting corridor in 2010, an increase or decrease of 25 basis points in the discount rate assumption for 2010 would have decreased or increased pension and post-retirement benefit expense for 2010 by approximately $80 million, of which $3 million relates to post-retirement benefits, and decreased or increased the amount of the benefit obligation recorded at December 31, 2010, by approximately $850 million, of which $70 million relates to post-retirement benefits. The effects of hypothetical changes in the discount rate for a single year may not be representative and may be asymmetrical or nonlinear for future years because of the application of the accounting corridor. The accounting corridor is a defined range within which amortization of net gains and losses is not required. Due to adverse capital market conditions in 2008 our pension plan assets experienced a negative return of approximately 16 percent in 2008. As a result, substantially all of our plans experienced net actuarial losses outside the 10 percent accounting corridor at the end of 2008, thus requiring accumulated gains and losses to be amortized to expense. As a result of this condition, sensitivity of net periodic pension costs to changes in the discount rate were much higher in 2009 and 2010 than was the case in 2008 and prior. This condition is expected to continue into the near future.
Expected Long-Term Rate of Return - The expected long-term rate of return on plan assets represents the average rate of earnings expected on the funds invested in a specified target asset allocation to provide for anticipated future benefit payment obligations. For 2010 and 2009, we assumed an expected long-term rate of return on plan assets of 8.5 percent. An increase or decrease of 25 basis points in the expected long-term rate of return assumption for 2010, holding all other assumptions constant, would increase or decrease our pension and post-retirement benefit expense for 2010 by approximately $54 million, of which $2 million relates to post-retirement benefits.
Health Care Cost Trend Rates - The health care cost trend rates represent the annual rates of change in the cost of health care benefits based on external estimates of health care inflation, changes in health care utilization or delivery patterns, technological advances, and changes in the health status of the plan participants. Using a combination of market expectations and economic projections including the effect of health care reform, we selected an expected initial health care cost trend rate of 8 percent for 2011 and an ultimate health care cost trend rate of 5 percent reached in 2017. In 2009, we assumed an expected initial health care cost trend rate of 7 percent for 2010 and an ultimate health care cost trend rate of 5 percent reached in 2014. Although our actual cost experience is much lower at this time, market conditions and the potential effects of health care reform are expected to increase medical cost trends in the next one to three years thus our past experience may not reflect future conditions.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Differences in the initial through the ultimate health care cost trend rates within the range indicated below would have had the following impact on 2010 post-retirement benefit results:
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED OPERATING RESULTS
Selected financial highlights are presented in the table below.
Sales and Service Revenues
Sales and service revenues consist of the following:
2010 - Sales and service revenues increased $1 billion, or 3 percent, over 2009. The increase is due to $862 million higher product sales and $140 million higher service revenues. The 4 percent increase in product sales reflects sales growth in Aerospace Systems and Shipbuilding. The 1 percent increase in service revenues reflects sales growth at Technical Services.
2009 - Sales and service revenues increased $1.4 billion, or 4 percent, over 2008. The increase is due to $1.3 billion higher product sales and $160 million higher service revenues. The 7 percent increase in product sales reflects sales growth in Aerospace Systems, Electronic Systems and Shipbuilding. The 1 percent increase in service revenues reflects sales growth in Information Systems and Technical Services.
See the Segment Operating Results section below for further information.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Cost of Sales and Service Revenues
Cost of sales and service revenues and general and administrative expenses are comprised of the following:
Cost of Product Sales and Service Revenues
2010 - Cost of product sales in 2010 increased $229 million, or 1 percent, over 2009 primarily due to the higher sales volume described above. The decrease in cost of product sales as a percentage of product sales was primarily due to lower GAAP pension expenses and performance improvements in Aerospace Systems and Electronic Systems.
Cost of service revenues in 2010 increased $250 million, or 2 percent, over 2009 and as a percentage of service revenues increased 90 basis points, primarily due to program mix changes at Information Systems.
2009 - Cost of product sales in 2009 increased $1.1 billion, or 7 percent, over 2008 primarily due to the higher sales volume described above. The increase in cost of product sales as a percentage of product sales was primarily due to higher GAAP pension costs across all of our businesses.
Cost of service revenues in 2009 increased $654 million, or 6 percent, over 2008 primarily due to the higher sales volume described above. The increase in cost of service revenues as a percentage of service revenues was primarily due to higher GAAP pension costs across all of our businesses.
See the Segment Operating Results section below for further information.
General and Administrative Expenses - In accordance with industry practice and the regulations that govern the cost accounting requirements for government contracts, most general corporate expenses incurred at both the segment and corporate locations are considered allowable and allocable costs on government contracts. For most components of the company, these costs are allocated to contracts in progress on a systematic basis and contract performance factors include this cost component as an element of cost. General and administrative expenses primarily relate to segment operations. General and administrative expenses for 2010 decreased $64 million from the prior year primarily due to the 2009 disposition of ASD at our Information Systems segment. General and administrative expenses as a percentage of total sales and service revenues decreased from 9.3 percent in 2009 to 8.9 percent in 2010, primarily due to cost reductions realized from the 2009 streamlining of our organizational structure from seven to five operating segments. General and administrative expenses as a percentage of total sales and service revenues decreased from 9.7 percent in 2008 to 9.3 percent in 2009, primarily due to lower corporate overhead costs and a $64 million gain from a legal settlement in 2009, net of legal provisions and related expenses.
Goodwill Impairment - In 2008, we recorded a non-cash charge totaling $3.1 billion at Aerospace Systems and Shipbuilding as a result of adverse equity market conditions that caused a decrease in market multiples and our stock price.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Operating Income (Loss)
We consider operating income to be an important measure for evaluating our operating performance and, as is typical in the industry, we define operating income as revenues less the related cost of producing the revenues and general and administrative expenses. We also further evaluate operating income for each of the business segments in which we operate.
We internally manage our operations by reference to “segment operating income.” Segment operating income is defined as operating income before unallocated expenses and net pension adjustment, neither of which affect the operating results of segments, and the reversal of royalty income, which is classified as “other, net” for financial reporting purposes. Segment operating income is one of the key metrics we use to evaluate operating performance. Segment operating income is not, however, a measure of financial performance under GAAP, and may not be defined and calculated by other companies in the same manner.
The table below reconciles segment operating income to total operating income:
Segment Operating Income (Loss)
Segment operating income in 2010 increased $397 million, or 14 percent, as compared with 2009. Total segment operating income was 9.6 percent and 8.7 percent of total sales and service revenues in 2010 and 2009, respectively. The increase in 2010 segment operating income is primarily due to the 3 percent increase in sales volume and performance improvements across all operating segments. Segment operating income in 2009 was $2.9 billion as compared with segment operating loss of $299 million in 2008. The loss in 2008 was primarily due to goodwill impairment charges totaling $3.1 billion at Aerospace Systems and Shipbuilding. See discussion of Segment Operating Results below for further information.
Unallocated Corporate Expenses
Unallocated corporate expenses generally include the portion of corporate expenses not considered allowable or allocable under applicable CAS and FAR rules, and therefore not allocated to the segments, such as management and administration, legal, environmental, certain compensation and retiree benefits, and other expenses. Unallocated corporate expenses for 2010 increased $109 million, or 98 percent, as compared with 2009, primarily due to inclusion of a $64 million net gain from a legal settlement in 2009, as well as an increase in environmental, health and welfare, and stock compensation expenses in 2010. Unallocated corporate expenses for 2009 decreased $46 million, or 29 percent, as compared with 2008, primarily due to a $64 million gain from a legal settlement in 2009, net of legal provisions and related expenses, partially offset by higher costs related to environmental remediation and post-retirement employee benefits.
Net Pension Adjustment
Net pension adjustment reflects the difference between pension expenses determined in accordance with GAAP and pension expense allocated to the operating segments determined in accordance with CAS. The pension adjustment in 2010 decreased by $286 million as compared with 2009 primarily due to lower GAAP pension expense as a result of favorable returns on pension plan assets in 2009. The net pension adjustment in 2009 was an expense of $311 million, as compared with income of $263 million in 2008. The net pension expense in 2009 was primarily the result of negative returns on plan assets in 2008.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Royalty Income Adjustment
Royalty income is included in segment operating income and reclassified to other income for financial reporting purposes. See Other, net below.
Interest Expense
2010 - Interest expense in 2010 was comparable to 2009.
2009 - Interest expense in 2009 decreased $14 million, or 5 percent, as compared with 2008. The decrease is primarily due to higher capitalized interest and lower interest rates.
Charge on Debt Redemption
2010 - In November 2010, we repurchased outstanding debt held by our subsidiaries, Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., and recorded a pre-tax charge of $231 million primarily related to premiums paid on the debt tendered. See Liquidity and Capital Resources below and Note 14 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8.
Other, net
2010 - Other, net for 2010 decreased $27 million as compared with 2009, primarily due to lower royalty income and lower returns on investments in marketable securities used as a funding source for non-qualified employee benefits.
2009 - Other, net for 2009 increased $26 million as compared with 2008, primarily due to positive mark-to-market adjustments on investments in marketable securities used as funding for non-qualified employee benefits and a gain from the recovery of a loan to an affiliate, which more than offset the benefit in the prior year of $60 million of royalty income from patent infringement settlements.
Federal and Foreign Income Taxes
2010 - Our effective tax rate on earnings from continuing operations for 2010 was 21.5 percent compared with 30.6 percent in 2009. In 2010, we recognized net tax benefits of approximately $296 million to reflect the final approval from the IRS and the U.S. Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (Joint Committee) of the IRS’ examination of our tax returns for the years 2004 through 2006. In 2009, we recognized net tax benefits of approximately $75 million primarily as a result of a final settlement with the IRS Office of Appeals and the Joint Committee related to our tax returns for years ended 2001 through 2003.
2009 - Our effective tax rate on earnings from continuing operations for 2009 was 30.6 percent compared with 33.8 percent in 2008 (excluding the non-cash, non-deductible goodwill impairment charge of $3.1 billion at Aerospace Systems and Shipbuilding). The 2009 tax rate reflects net tax benefits of approximately $75 million related to a final settlement with the IRS as discussed above.
Discontinued Operations
2010 - Earnings from discontinued operations, net of tax was $15 million and is primarily attributable to adjustments to the gain on the 2009 sale of ASD to reflect purchase price adjustments and the utilization of additional capital loss carry-forwards.
2009 - Earnings from discontinued operations, net of tax was $113 million for 2009, compared with $117 million in 2008. The earnings were primarily attributable to the operating results and gain on disposition of ASD, which was sold in December 2009. See Note 6 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8.
Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share
2010 - Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations in 2010 were $6.77 per share, as compared with $4.87 diluted earnings per share in 2009. Diluted earnings per share are based on weighted-average diluted shares outstanding of 301.1 million for 2010 and 323.3 million for 2009, respectively.
2009 - Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations in 2009 were $4.87 per share, as compared with $4.12 diluted loss per share in 2008. Earnings per share are based on weighted-average diluted shares outstanding
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
of 323.3 million for 2009 and weighted average basic shares outstanding of 334.5 million for 2008. For the year ended December 31, 2008, the potential dilutive effect of 7.1 million shares from stock options, stock awards, and the mandatorily redeemable preferred stock were excluded from the computation of weighted average shares outstanding as the shares would have had an anti-dilutive effect. The goodwill impairment charge of $3.1 billion at Aerospace Systems and Shipbuilding reduced our 2008 diluted earnings per share from continuing operations by $9.15 per share.
Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities
2010 - Net cash provided by operating activities in 2010 was $2.5 billion as compared with $2.1 billion in 2009 and reflects improved cash collections from our customers and lower tax payments, primarily due to $508 million taxes paid in 2009 related to the sale of ASD. In 2010, we contributed $894 million to our pension plans, of which $830 million was voluntarily pre-funded, as compared with $858 million in 2009, of which $800 million was voluntarily pre-funded. Income taxes paid, net of refunds, was $1.1 billion in 2010, as compared with $1.3 billion in 2009.
Net cash provided by operating activities for 2010 included $94 million of federal and state income tax refunds and $11 million of interest income received.
2009 - Net cash provided by operating activities in 2009 was $2.1 billion compared with $3.2 billion in 2008 and reflects higher pension plan contributions and income tax payments. In 2009, we contributed $858 million to our pension plans, of which $800 million was voluntarily pre-funded, as compared with $320 million in 2008, of which $200 million was voluntarily pre-funded. Income taxes paid, net of refunds, was $1.3 billion in 2009, as compared with $719 million in 2008. Income taxes paid in 2009 included $508 million resulting from the sale of ASD.
Net cash provided by operating activities for 2009 included $171 million of federal and state income tax refunds and $11 million of interest income.
SEGMENT OPERATING RESULTS
Basis of Presentation
We are aligned into five reportable segments: Aerospace Systems, Electronic Systems, Information Systems, Shipbuilding and Technical Services. See Note 8 in Part II, Item 8 for more information about our segments.
In January 2010, we transferred our internal information technology services unit from the Information Systems segment to our corporate shared services group. The intersegment sales and operating income for this unit that were previously recognized in the Information Systems segment are immaterial and have been eliminated for the years presented.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
See Consolidated Operating Results - Operating Income (Loss) above for more information on non-segment factors affecting our operating results.
KEY SEGMENT FINANCIAL MEASURES
Operating Performance Assessment and Reporting
We manage and assess the performance of our businesses based on our performance on individual contracts and programs obtained generally from government organizations using the financial measures referred to below, with consideration given to the Critical Accounting Policies, Estimates and Judgments described on page 32. As indicated in our discussion on “Contracts” on page 31, our portfolio of long-term contracts is largely flexibly-priced, which means that sales tend to fluctuate in concert with costs across our large portfolio of active contracts, with operating income being a critical measure of operational performance. Due to FAR rules that govern our business, most types of costs are allowable, and we do not focus on individual cost groupings (such as cost of sales or general and administrative costs) as much as we do on total contract costs, which are a key factor in determining contract operating income. As a result, in evaluating our operating performance, we look primarily at changes in sales and service revenues, and operating income, including the effects of significant changes in operating income as a result of changes in contract estimates and the use of the cumulative catch-up method of accounting in accordance with GAAP. Unusual fluctuations in operating performance attributable to changes in a specific cost element across multiple contracts, however, are described in our analysis. Based on this approach and the nature of our operations, the discussion of results of operations generally focuses around our five segments versus distinguishing between products and services. Our Aerospace Systems, Electronic Systems and Shipbuilding segments generate predominantly product sales, while the Information Systems and Technical Services segments generate predominantly service revenues.
Sales and Service Revenues
Period-to-period sales reflect performance under new and ongoing contracts. Changes in sales and service revenues are typically expressed in terms of volume. Unless otherwise described, volume generally refers to increases (or decreases) in reported revenues due to varying production activity levels, delivery rates, or service levels on individual contracts. Volume changes will typically carry a corresponding income change based on the margin rate for a particular contract.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Segment Operating Income
Segment operating income reflects the aggregate performance results of contracts within a business area or segment. Excluded from this measure are certain costs not directly associated with contract performance, including the portion of corporate expenses such as management and administration, legal, environmental, certain compensation and other retiree benefits, and other expenses not considered allowable or allocable under applicable CAS regulations and the FAR, and therefore not allocated to the segments. Changes in segment operating income are typically expressed in terms of volume, as discussed above, or performance. Performance refers to changes in contract margin rates. These changes typically relate to profit recognition associated with revisions to total estimated costs at completion of the contract (EAC) that reflect improved (or deteriorated) operating performance on a particular contract. Operating income changes are accounted for on a cumulative to date basis at the time an EAC change is recorded.
Operating income may also be affected by, among other things, the effects of workforce stoppages, natural disasters (such as hurricanes and earthquakes), resolution of disputed items with the customer, recovery of insurance proceeds, and other discrete events. At the completion of a long-term contract, any originally estimated costs not incurred or reserves not fully utilized (such as warranty reserves) could also impact contract earnings. Where such items have occurred, and the effects are material, a separate description is provided.
For a more complete understanding of each segment’s product and services, see the business descriptions in Part I, Item 1.
Program Descriptions
For convenience, a brief description of certain programs discussed in this Form 10-K are included in the “Glossary of Programs” beginning on page 54.
AEROSPACE SYSTEMS
Sales and Service Revenues
2010 - Aerospace Systems revenue increased $491 million, or 5 percent, as compared with 2009. The increase is primarily due to $517 million higher sales in Battle Management & Engagement Systems (BM&ES) and $218 million higher sales in Strike & Surveillance Systems (S&SS), partially offset by $315 million lower sales in Advanced Programs & Technology (AP&T). The increase in BM&ES is due to higher sales volume on the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aircraft System, EA-6B, EA-18G, E-2 and Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV) programs. The increase in S&SS is primarily due to higher sales volume associated with manned and unmanned aircraft programs, such as the Global Hawk High-Altitude Long-Endurance (HALE) Systems, the Lightning II (F-35), B-2 Stealth Bomber and F/A-18, partially offset by the termination of the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program in 2009 and decreased activity on the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) program. The decrease in AP&T is primarily due to lower sales volume on restricted programs and the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System (N-UCAS) program.
2009 - Aerospace Systems revenue increased $594 million, or 6 percent, as compared with 2008. The increase was primarily due to $201 million higher sales in Space Systems (SS), $201 million higher sales in BM&ES, and $191 million higher sales in S&SS. The increase in SS was primarily due to the ramp-up of restricted programs awarded in 2008, partially offset by decreased sales volume on the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) and cancellation of the Transformational Satellite Communications System (TSAT) program. The increase in BM&ES was primarily due to higher sales volume on the BAMS Unmanned Aircraft System, the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and the EA-18G programs, partially offset by lower
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
sales volume on the E2-C as the program is nearing completion. The increase in S&SS was primarily due to higher sales volume from the Global Hawk HALE Systems,, F/A-18, and B-2 programs, partially offset by decreased activity on the KEI program, which was terminated for convenience in 2009, and the ICBM program.
Segment Operating Income
2010 - Aerospace Systems operating income increased $185 million, or 17 percent, as compared with 2009. The increase is primarily due to $128 million in net performance improvements across various programs, principally within SS, and $57 million from the higher sales volume discussed above.
2009 - Aerospace Systems operating income increased $655 million, or 157 percent, as compared with 2008. The increase was primarily due to a 2008 goodwill impairment charge of $570 million (see Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8), $61 million from the higher sales volume discussed above, and $24 million in improved program performance. The $24 million in improved program performance was principally due to $67 million in performance improvements in S&SS programs, primarily related to the ICBM program and the Global Hawk HALE Systems, partially offset by $33 million in lower performance across various programs in SS and BM&ES.
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS
Sales and Service Revenues
2010 - Electronic Systems revenue decreased $58 million, or less than 1 percent, as compared with 2009. The decrease is primarily due to $150 million lower sales in Land & Self Protection Systems, $84 million lower sales in Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance (ISR) Systems and $82 million lower sales in Naval & Marine Systems, partially offset by $186 million higher sales in Targeting Systems and $72 million higher sales in Advanced Concepts & Technologies. The decrease in Land & Self Protection Systems is due to lower sales volume on the Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) program as it transitions from the development phase to the integration and test phase and lower unit deliveries on the Vehicular Intercommunications Systems (VIS) program. The decrease in ISR Systems is due to lower sales volume on the Space Based Infrared Systems (SBIRS) program as it transitions to follow-on production, postal automation programs and various international programs. The decrease in Naval & Marine Systems is due to lower volume on the ship-board Cobra Judy replacement radar program. The increase in Targeting Systems is due to higher sales volume on the, various laser systems and restricted programs and increased unit deliveries of the LITENING targeting pod system. The increase in Advanced Concepts & Technologies is primarily due to volume on restricted programs.
2009 - Electronic Systems revenue increased $623 million, or 9 percent, as compared with 2008. The increase was primarily due to $213 million higher sales in Targeting Systems, $188 million higher sales in ISR Systems, $88 million higher sales in Land & Self Protection Systems, $80 million higher sales in Navigation Systems and $30 million higher sales in Naval & Marine Systems. The increase in Targeting Systems was due to higher sales volume on the and restricted programs. The increase in ISR Systems was due to higher sales volume on SBIRS follow-on production and intercompany programs. The increase in Land & Self Protection Systems was due to higher deliveries associated with the Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) program, higher volume on the B-52 Sustainment and intercompany programs. The increase in Navigation Systems was due to higher volume on Inertial and Fiber Optic Gyro navigation programs. The increase in Naval & Marine Systems was due to higher volume on power and propulsion systems for the Virginia-class submarine program.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Segment Operating Income
2010 - Electronic Systems operating income increased $54 million, or 6 percent, as compared with 2009. The increase is primarily due to net performance improvements in land and self protection programs, higher volume in Targeting Systems, and lower operating loss provisions in postal automation programs.
2009 - Electronic Systems operating income increased $22 million, or 2 percent, as compared with 2008. The increase was primarily due to $79 million from the higher sales volume discussed above, partially offset by $57 million in higher unfavorable performance adjustments in 2009. The higher unfavorable performance adjustments in 2009 were due to adjustments of $98 million in ISR Systems, primarily on the Flats Sequencing System postal automation program, partially offset by favorable performance adjustments in targeting systems and land and self protection programs. Operating performance adjustments in 2008 included royalty income of $60 million and a $20 million charge for the MESA Wedgetail program associated with potential liquidated damages arising from the prime contractor’s announced schedule delay in completing the program.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Sales and Service Revenues
2010 - Information Systems revenue decreased $141 million, or 2 percent, as compared with 2009. The decrease is primarily due to $130 million lower sales in Intelligence Systems and $57 million lower sales in Civil Systems, partially offset by $55 million higher sales in Defense Systems. The decrease in Intelligence Systems is primarily due to lower sales volume on restricted programs and the loss of the Navstar Global Positioning System Operational Control Segment (GPS OCX) program. The decrease in Civil Systems is primarily due to lower sales volume on the New York City Wireless (NYCWiN) and Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) programs. The increase in Defense Systems is primarily due to program growth on Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN), Joint National Integration Center Research and Development Contract (JRDC) and Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) activities, partially offset by lower sales volume on the Trailer Mounted Support System (TMSS) program as it nears completion, and decreased Systems and Software Engineer Support activities.
2009 - Information Systems revenue increased $362 million, or 4 percent, as compared with 2008. The increase was primarily due to $285 million in higher sales in Intelligence Systems and $194 million in higher sales in Defense Systems, partially offset by $123 million in lower sales in Civil Systems. The increase in Intelligence Systems was primarily due to program growth on the Counter Narco-Terrorism Program Office (CNTPO), Guardrail Common Sensor System indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) and certain restricted programs, partially offset by lower sales volume on the Navstar GPS OCX program. The increase in Defense Systems was primarily due to program growth on TMSS, Airborne and Maritime/Fixed Stations Joint Tactical Radio Systems and BACN programs, partially offset by fewer delivery orders on the Force XXI Battle Brigade and Below (FBCB2) I-Kits program. The decrease in Civil Systems was primarily due to lower volume on NYCWiN and Virginia IT outsourcing (VITA) programs.
Segment Operating Income
2010 - Information Systems operating income increased $132 million, or 21 percent, as compared with 2009 and as percentage of sales increased 170 basis points. The increase is primarily due to performance improvements on Civil Systems programs. In 2009, operating income included $37 million of non-recurring costs associated with the sale of ASD.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
2009 - Information Systems operating income decreased $2 million as compared with 2008. The decrease was primarily due to $30 million from the higher sales volume discussed above, offset by non-recurring costs associated with the sale of ASD and unfavorable performance results in Civil Systems programs, principally due to the VITA outsourcing program for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
SHIPBUILDING
Sales and Service Revenues
2010 - Shipbuilding revenue increased $506 million, or 8 percent, as compared with 2009. The increase is due to $388 million higher sales in Expeditionary Warfare, $144 million higher sales in Aircraft Carriers and $114 million in higher sales in Submarines, partially offset by $98 million lower sales in Surface Combatants. The increase in Expeditionary Warfare is primarily due to higher sales volume on the LPD and LHA programs, partially offset by delivery of the LHD 8 in 2009. In the second quarter of 2010, we announced the wind-down of shipbuilding operations at the Avondale, Louisiana facility in 2013 (see Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8) and reduced revenues by $115 million to reflect revised estimates to complete LPDs 23 and 25. In the year-ended December 31, 2009, we reduced revenues by $160 million to reflect revised estimates to complete the LPD-class ships and the LHA 6. The increase in Aircraft Carriers is primarily due to higher sales volume on the Gerald R. Ford construction program and the USS Theodore Roosevelt Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH), partially offset by the delivery of USS George H.W. Bush and re-delivery of the USS Enterprise and USS Carl Vinson in early 2010 and 2009, respectively. The increase in Submarines is due to higher sales volume on the Virginia-class submarines. The decrease in Surface Combatants is due to lower sales volume on the DDG programs.
2009 - Shipbuilding revenue increased $68 million, or 1 percent, as compared with 2008. The increase was due to $180 million higher sales in Submarines, $58 million higher sales in Expeditionary Warfare and $39 million higher sales in Aircraft Carriers, partially offset by $113 million lower sales in Fleet Support and $109 million lower sales in Surface Combatants. The increase in Submarines was primarily due to higher sales volume on the construction of the Virginia-class submarines. The increase in Expeditionary Warfare was due to higher sales volume in the LPD program due to production ramp-ups, partially offset by the delivery of the LHD 8. The decrease in Fleet Support was primarily due to the redelivery of the USS Toledo submarine in the first quarter of 2009 and decreased carrier fleet support services. The decrease in Surface Combatants was primarily due to lower sales volume on the DDG 51 program.
Segment Operating Income (Loss)
2010 - Shipbuilding operating income increased $26 million, or 9 percent, as compared with 2009, primarily due to the higher sales volume discussed above. Operating income in 2010 includes the effects of unfavorable performance adjustments on Expeditionary Warfare programs, partially offset by milestone incentives on the LPD contracts. In Expeditionary Warfare, we recorded unfavorable performance adjustments of $132 million on LPDs 22 through 25, including the effect of a $113 million charge for the cumulative effect of the $210 million of incremental costs expected in connection with our decision to wind down shipbuilding operations at the Avondale facility in 2013 (see Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8). Additionally, we recognized an unfavorable adjustment of $30 million to reflect additional costs to complete post-delivery work for the LHD 8. In 2009, operating income included $38 million and $171 million in unfavorable performance adjustments on the DDG 51 and LPD 17 programs, partially offset by a $54 million favorable adjustment on the LHD 8 contract.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
2009 - Shipbuilding operating income was $299 million as compared with operating loss of $2.3 billion in 2008. The increase was primarily due to the 2008 goodwill impairment charge of $2.5 billion (See Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8), and improved performance in Expeditionary Warfare as compared to 2008. In 2008, the Expeditionary Warfare business had net negative performance adjustments of $263 million due principally to adjustments on the LHD 8 contract, cost growth and schedule delays on the LPD program and the effects of Hurricane Ike on a subcontractor’s performance.
TECHNICAL SERVICES
Sales and Service Revenues
2010 - Technical Services revenue increased $454 million, or 16 percent, as compared with 2009. The increase is primarily due to $379 million higher sales in the Integrated Logistics and Modernization Division (ILMD). The increase in ILMD is primarily due to the continued ramp-up of the recently awarded KC-10 and C-20 programs.
2009 - Technical Services revenue increased $241 million, or 10 percent, as compared with 2008. The increase was primarily due to $245 million higher sales in ILMD, and $74 million higher sales in Training Solutions Division (TSD), partially offset by $72 million lower sales in Defense and Government Services Division (DGSD). The increase in ILMD was due to increased task orders for the CNTPO program and higher demand on the Hunter Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) programs in support of the DoD’s surge in Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) initiatives. The increase in TSD was due to higher volume on various training and simulation programs including the Joint Warfighting Center Support, Saudi Arabia National Guard Modernization and Training, Global Linguist Solutions, National Level Exercise 2009 and African Contingency Operations Training Assistance programs. These increases were partially offset by lower 2009 sales in DGSD due to the completion of the Joint Base Operations Support program in 2008.
Segment Operating Income
2010 - Operating income at Technical Services increased $45 million, or 28 percent, as compared with 2009. The increase is primarily due to the higher sales volume discussed above. Operating income as a percentage of sales increased 60 basis points and reflects improved program performance and business mix changes.
2009 - Operating income at Technical Services increased $17 million, or 12 percent, as compared with 2008. The increase was primarily due to the higher sales volume discussed above and $3 million from performance improvements across numerous programs.
BACKLOG
Definition
Total backlog at December 31, 2010, was approximately $64.2 billion. Total backlog includes both funded backlog (firm orders for which funding is contractually obligated by the customer) and unfunded backlog (firm orders for which funding is not currently contractually obligated by the customer). Unfunded backlog excludes unexercised contract options and unfunded indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) orders. For multi-year services contracts with non-federal government customers having no stated contract values, backlog includes only the amounts committed by the customer.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
The following table presents funded and unfunded backlog by segment at December 31, 2010, and 2009:
Backlog is converted into the following years’ sales as costs are incurred or deliveries are made. Approximately 48 percent of the $64.2 billion total backlog at December 31, 2010, is expected to be converted into sales in 2011. Total U.S. Government orders, including those made on behalf of foreign governments, comprised 91 percent of the total backlog at the end of 2010. Total foreign customer orders accounted for 5 percent of the total backlog at the end of 2010. Domestic commercial backlog represented 4 percent of total backlog at the end of 2010.
Backlog Adjustments
2010 - A $1.1 billion reduction in backlog was recorded in 2010 as a result of the restructure of the NPOESS program at our Aerospace Systems segment.
Backlog was also impacted in 2010 by an agreement we reached with the Commonwealth of Virginia related to the VITA contract. The agreement defined minimum revenue amounts for the remaining years under the base contract and extended the contract for three additional years through 2019. We recorded a favorable backlog adjustment of $824 million for the definitization of the base contract revenues for years 2011 through 2016, while the contract extension and 2010 portion of the base contract revenues, totaling $802 million, were recorded as new awards in the period in our Information Systems segment.
2009 - Total backlog in 2009 reflects a negative backlog adjustment of $5.8 billion for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program termination for convenience at Aerospace Systems and the DDG 1000 program restructure at Shipbuilding.
New Awards
2010 - The estimated value of contract awards included in backlog during the year ended December 31, 2010, was $30 billion. Significant new awards during this period include $1.2 billion for the Global Hawk HALE program, $979 million for the E-2 Hawkeye programs, $942 million for the AEHF program, $802 million for the VITA program, $677 million for the Joint National Integration Center Research and Development contract, $656 million for the F/A 18 Hornet Strike Fighter program, $654 million for the ICBM program, $631 million for the B-2 Stealth Bomber programs, $579 million for the program, $565 million for the NSTec program, $507 for the KC-10 program, $505 million for the Large Aircraft Infrared Counter-measures programs and various restricted awards.
2009 - The estimated value of new contract awards during the year ended December 31, 2009, was $32.3 billion. Significant new awards during this period include a contract valued up to $2.4 billion for the USS Theodore Roosevelt RCOH, $1.2 billion for the LRIP program, $1.2 billion for the Global Hawk HALE program, $1 billion for the B-2 program, up to $635 million for engineering, design and modernization support of new construction, operational, and decommissioning submarines, $485 million for the Nevada Test Site program, $484 million for the E2-D LRIP program, $437 million for the IBCS program, $403 million for the
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
SBIRS follow on production program, $385 million for the Saudi Arabian National Guard Modernization and Training program, $374 million for the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, $360 million for the BACN program, $296 million to finalize the development of the Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A), $286 million for the LAIRCM IDIQ, and various restricted awards.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
We endeavor to ensure the most efficient conversion of operating results into cash for deployment in growing our businesses and maximizing shareholder value. We actively manage our capital resources through working capital improvements, capital expenditures, strategic business acquisitions and divestitures, debt issuance and repayment, required and voluntary pension contributions, and returning cash to our shareholders through dividend payments and repurchases of common stock.
We use various financial measures to assist in capital deployment decision-making, including net cash provided by operations, free cash flow, net debt-to-equity, and net debt-to-capital. We believe these measures are useful to investors in assessing our financial performance.
The table below summarizes key components of cash flow provided by operating activities.
(1)
Includes depreciation & amortization, stock based compensation expense and deferred taxes.
Free Cash Flow
Free cash flow represents cash from operating activities less capital expenditures and outsourcing contract and related software costs. Outsourcing contract and related software costs are similar to capital expenditures in that the contract costs represent incremental external costs or certain specific internal costs that are directly related to the contract acquisition and transition/set-up. These outsourcing contract and related software costs are deferred and expensed over the contract life. We believe free cash flow is a useful measure for investors to consider. This measure is a key factor used by management in our planning for and consideration of strategic acquisitions, stock repurchases and the payment of dividends.
Free cash flow is not a measure of financial performance under GAAP, and may not be defined and calculated by other companies in the same manner. This measure should not be considered in isolation, as a measure of residual cash flow available for discretionary purposes, or as an alternative to operating results presented in accordance with GAAP as indicators of performance.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
The table below reconciles net cash provided by operating activities to free cash flow:
Cash Flows
The following is a discussion of our major operating, investing and financing activities for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2010, as classified on the consolidated statements of cash flows located in Part II, Item 8.
Operating Activities
2010 - Net cash provided by operating activities in 2010 increased $320 million as compared with 2009 and reflects improved cash collections from our customers and lower tax payments. In 2009, net cash provided by operating activities included $508 million taxes paid related to the sale of ASD. Pension plan contributions totaled $894 million in 2010, of which $830 million was voluntarily pre-funded.
In 2011, we expect to contribute the required minimum funding level of approximately $62 million to our pension plans and approximately $160 million to our other post-retirement benefit plans, and also expect to make additional voluntary pension contributions of approximately $500 million. We expect cash generated from operations for 2011 to be sufficient to service debt and contract obligations, finance capital expenditures, continue acquisition of shares under the share repurchase program, and continue paying dividends to our shareholders. Although 2011 cash from operations is expected to be sufficient to service these obligations, we may borrow under credit facilities to accommodate timing differences in cash flows. We have a committed $2 billion revolving credit facility that is currently undrawn and that can be accessed on a same-day basis. Additionally, we believe we could access capital markets for debt financing for longer-term funding, under current market conditions, if needed.
2009 - Net cash provided by operating activities in 2009 decreased $1.1 billion as compared with 2008, reflecting higher voluntary pension contributions and increased income taxes paid resulting from the sale of ASD. Pension plan contributions totaled $858 million in 2009, of which $800 million was voluntary pre-funded.
2008 - Net cash provided by operating activities in 2008 increased $321 million as compared with 2007, and reflects lower income tax payments and continued trade working capital reductions. Pension plan contributions totaled $320 million in 2008, of which $200 million was voluntarily pre-funded, and were comparable to 2007. Net cash provided by operating activities for 2008 included $113 million of federal and state income tax refunds and $23 million of interest income.
Investing Activities
2010 - Cash used in investing activities was $761 million in 2010 and reflects $770 million of capital expenditures, which includes $57 million of capitalized software costs. Capital expenditure commitments at December 31, 2010, were approximately $444 million, which are expected to be paid with cash on hand.
2009 - Cash provided by investing activities was $867 million in 2009. During 2009, we received $1.65 billion in proceeds from the sale of ASD (see Note 6 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8), paid $68 million for outsourcing costs related to outsourcing services contracts, and paid $33 million to acquire Sonoma Photonics, Inc. and the assets from Swift Engineering’s Killer Bee Unmanned Air Systems product line
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
(see Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8). Capital expenditures in 2009 were $654 million and included $36 million of capitalized software costs.
2008 - Cash used in investing activities was $626 million in 2008. During 2008, we received $175 million in proceeds from the sale of the Electro-Optical Systems business, spent $92 million for the acquisition of 3001 International, Inc. (see Notes 5 and 6 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8), paid $110 million for outsourcing costs related to outsourcing services contracts, and released $61 million of restricted cash related to the Gulf Opportunity Zone Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (see Note 14 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8). We had $11 million in restricted cash as of December 31, 2008 related to the Xinetics Inc. purchase (see Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8). Capital expenditures in 2008 were $681 million and included $23 million of capitalized software costs.
Financing Activities
2010 - Cash used in financing activities in 2010 was $1.3 billion, which was comparable to 2009. Financing activities in 2010 reflect $1.2 billion in debt payments, including the repurchase of $682 million of higher coupon debt, $231 million for fees and associated premiums paid to the tendering holders of these debt securities, and the repurchase of $178 million of Shipbuilding indebtedness in connection with our analysis of strategic alternatives for that business. These financing outflows were offset by $1.5 billion in net proceeds from new debt issuances. See Note 14 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8. In addition, we repurchased $1.2 billion of our common shares outstanding in 2010.
2009 - Cash used in financing activities in 2009 was $1.2 billion compared with $2 billion in 2008 and reflects $843 million in net proceeds from new debt issuance in 2009. See Note 14 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8.
2008 - Cash used in financing activities in 2008 was $2 billion compared to $1.5 billion in 2007. The $532 million increase is primarily due to $380 million more for share repurchases and $171 million lower proceeds from stock option exercises.
Share Repurchases - We repurchased 19.7 million, 23.1 million, and 21.4 million shares in 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively. See Purchases of Equity Securities by Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers in Part II, Item 5 and Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 for a discussion concerning our common stock repurchases.
Credit Facility
We have a revolving credit agreement, which provides for a five-year revolving credit facility in an aggregate principal amount of $2 billion and a maturity date of August 10, 2012. The credit facility permits us to request additional lending commitments from the lenders under the agreement or other eligible lenders under certain circumstances, and thereby increase the aggregate principal amount of the lending commitments under the agreement by up to an additional $500 million. Our credit agreement contains a financial covenant relating to a maximum debt to capitalization ratio, and certain restrictions on additional asset liens, unless permitted by the agreement. As of December 31, 2010, we were in compliance with all covenants.
There were no borrowings during 2010 and 2009 under this facility. There was no balance outstanding under this facility at December 31, 2010, and 2009.
Other Sources and Uses of Capital
Additional Capital - We believe we can obtain additional capital, if necessary for long-term liquidity, from such sources as the public or private capital markets, the sale of assets, sale and leaseback of operating assets, and leasing rather than purchasing new assets. We have an effective shelf registration statement on file with the SEC.
We expect that cash on hand at the beginning of the year plus cash generated from operations supplemented by borrowings under credit facilities and in the capital markets, if needed, will be sufficient in 2011 to service debt and contract obligations, finance capital expenditures, pay federal, foreign, and state income taxes, fund required
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
and voluntary pension and other post retirement benefit plan contributions, continue acquisition of shares under the share repurchase program, and continue paying dividends to shareholders. We will continue to provide the productive capacity to perform our existing contracts, prepare for future contracts, and conduct research and development in the pursuit of developing opportunities.
Financial Arrangements - In the ordinary course of business, we use standby letters of credit and guarantees issued by commercial banks and surety bonds issued by insurance companies principally to guarantee the performance on certain contracts and to support our self-insured workers’ compensation plans. At December 31, 2010, there were $303 million of unused stand-by letters of credit, $192 million of bank guarantees, and $446 million of surety bonds outstanding.
Contractual Obligations
The following table presents our contractual obligations as of December 31, 2010, and the estimated timing of future cash payments:
(1)
A “purchase obligation” is defined as an agreement to purchase goods or services that is enforceable and legally binding on us and that specifies all significant terms, including: fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased; fixed, minimum, or variable price provisions; and the approximate timing of the transaction. These amounts are primarily comprised of open purchase order commitments to vendors and subcontractors pertaining to funded contracts.
(2)
Other long-term liabilities primarily consist of total accrued workers’ compensation and environmental reserves, deferred compensation, and other miscellaneous liabilities, of which $109 million and $197 million of the environmental and workers’ compensation reserves, respectively, are recorded in other current liabilities. It excludes obligations for uncertain tax positions of $135 million, as the timing of the payments, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated.
The table above also excludes estimated minimum funding requirements and expected voluntary contributions for retiree benefit plans as set forth by ERISA in relation to the company’s pension and postretirement benefit obligations totaling approximately $5.5 billion over the next five years: $722 million in 2011, $494 million in 2012, $698 million in 2013, $696 million in 2014, and $719 million in 2015. The company also has payments due under plans that are not required to be funded in advance, but are funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. See Note 17 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8.
Further details regarding long-term debt and operating leases can be found in Notes 14 and 16, respectively, to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8.
OTHER MATTERS
Accounting Standards Updates
The Financial Accounting Standards Board has issued new accounting standards which are not effective until after December 31, 2010. For further discussion of new accounting standards, see Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
As of December 31, 2010, we had no significant off-balance sheet arrangements other than operating leases. For a description of our operating leases, see Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8.
GLOSSARY OF PROGRAMS
Listed below are brief descriptions of the programs discussed in Segment Operating Results of this Form 10-K.
Program Name
Program Description
Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF)
Provide the communication payload for the nation’s next generation military strategic and tactical satellite relay systems that will deliver survivable, protected communications to U.S. forces and selected allies worldwide.
African Contingency Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA)
Provide peacekeeping training to militaries in African nations via the Department of State. The program is designed to improve the ability of African governments to respond quickly to crises by providing selected militaries with the training and equipment required to execute humanitarian or peace support operations.
Airborne and Maritime/Fixed Stations Joint Tactical Radio Systems (AMF JTRS)
AMF JTRS will develop a communications capability that includes two software-defined, multifunction radio form factors for use by the U.S. Department of Defense and potential use by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Northrop Grumman has the responsibility for leading the Joint Tactical Radio (JTR) integrated product team and co-development of the JTR small airborne (JTR-SA) hardware and software. The company will also provide common JTR software for two JTR form factors, wideband power amplifiers, and the use of Northrop Grumman’s Advanced Communications Test Center in San Diego as the integration and test site for the JTR-SA radio, waveforms and ancillaries.
Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA)
An enterprise-wide medical and dental clinical information system that provides secure online access to health records.
B-2 Stealth Bomber
Maintain strategic, long-range multi-role bomber with war- fighting capability that combines long range, large payload, all-aspect stealth, and near-precision weapons in one aircraft.
B-52 Sustainment
B-52 ALQ-155, ALQ-122, ALT-16, ALT-32 and ALR-20 Power Management Systems are legacy electronic countermeasures systems protecting the B-52 over a wideband frequency range. The program provides design and test products to resolve obsolescence and maintainability issues using modern digital receiver/exciter designs.
Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN)
Install the BACN system in three Bombardier BD-700 Global Express aircraft for immediate fielding and install the BACN system into two Global Hawk Block 20 unmanned aerial vehicles.
Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aircraft System
A maritime derivative of the Global Hawk that provides persistent maritime Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) data collection and dissemination capability to the Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force.
Cobra Judy
The Cobra Judy Replacement program will replace the current U.S. Naval Ship (USNS) Observation Island and its aged AN/SPQ-11 Cobra Judy
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Program Name
Program Description
ballistic missile tracking radar. Northrop Grumman will provide the S-band phased-array radar for use in technical data collection against ballistic missiles in flight.
Counter Narco-Terrorism Program Office (CNTPO)
Counter Narco Terrorism Program Office provides support to the U.S. Government, coalition partners, and host nations in Technology Development and Application Support; Training; Operations and Logistics Support; and Professional and Executive Support. The program provides equipment and services to research, develop, upgrade, install, fabricate, test, deploy, operate, train, maintain, and support new and existing federal Government platforms, systems, subsystems, items, and host- nation support initiatives.
C-20
Contractor Logistics Services (CLS) contract supporting the U.S. Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps C-20 aircraft including depot maintenance, contractor operational and maintained base supply, flight line maintenance and field team support at multiple Main Operating Bases (MOBs), located in the United States and overseas.
DDG 51
Build Aegis guided missile destroyer, equipped for conducting anti-air, anti-submarine, anti-surface and strike operations.
DDG 1000
Design and build components of the first in a class of the U.S. Navy’s multi-mission surface combatants tailored for land attack and littoral dominance.
Deepwater Modernization
Multi-year program to modernize and replace the Coast Guard’s aging ships and aircraft, and improve command and control and logistics systems. The company has design and production responsibility for surface ships.
Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) Mobile Basic
DCGS-A Mobile Basic is the Army’s latest in a series of DCGS-A systems designed to access and ingest multiple data types from a wide variety of intelligence sensors, sources and databases. This new system will also deliver greater operational and logistical advantages over the currently-fielded DCGS-A Version 3 and the nine ISR programs it replaces.
E-2 Hawkeye
The U.S. Navy’s airborne battle management command and control mission system platform providing airborne early warning detection, identification, tracking, targeting, and communication capabilities. The company is developing the next generation capability including radar, mission computer, vehicle, and other system enhancements, to support the U.S Naval Battle Groups and Joint Forces, called the E-2D. The U.S, Navy approved Milestone C for Low Rate Initial Production.
EA-6B
The EA-6B (Prowler) primary mission is to jam enemy radar and communications, thereby preventing them from directing hostile surface-to-air missiles at assets the Prowler protects. When equipped with the improved ALQ-218 receiver and the next generation ICAP III ( Increased Capability) Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) suite the Prowler is able to provide rapid detection, precise classification, and highly accurate geolocation of electronic emissions and counter modern, frequency-hopping radars. A derivative/variant of the EA-6B ICAP III mission system is also being incorporated into the F/A- 18 platform and designated the EA-18G.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Program Name
Program Description
EA-18G
The EA-18G is the replacement platform for the EA6B Prowler, which is currently the armed services’ only offensive tactical radar jamming aircraft. The Increased Capability (ICAP) III mission system capability, developed for the EA-6B Prowler, will be in incorporated into an F/A-18 platform (designated the EA-18G).
F/A-18
Produce the center and aft fuselage sections, twin vertical stabilizers, and integrate all associated subsystems for the F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters.
Lightning II
Design, integration, and/or development of the center fuselage and weapons bay, communications, navigations, identification subsystem, systems engineering, and mission systems software as well as provide ground and flight test support, modeling, simulation activities, and training courseware.
Flats Sequencing System (FSS)/Postal Automation
Build systems for the U.S. Postal Service designed to further automate the flat mail stream, which includes large envelopes, catalogs and magazines.
Force XXI Battle Brigade and Below (FBCB2)
Install in Army vehicles a system of computer hardware and software that forms a wireless, tactical Internet for near-real- time situational awareness and command and control on the battlefield.
Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers
Design and construction for the new class of Aircraft Carriers.
Global Hawk High-Altitude Long-Endurance (HALE) Systems
Provide the Global Hawk HALE unmanned aerial system for use in the global war on terror and has a central role in Intelligence, Reconnaissance, and Surveillance supporting operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Global Linguist Solutions (GLS)
Provide interpretation, translation and linguist services in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR)
A development program to provide the next generation ground based multi-mission radar for the USMC. Provides Short Range Air Defense, Air Defense Surveillance, Ground Weapon Location and Air Traffic Control. Replaces five existing USMC single- mission radars.
Guardrail Common Sensor System IDIQ (GRCS-I)
Sole source IDIQ contract which will encompass efforts for the upgrade and modernization of the current field Guardrail systems.
Hunter Contractor Logistics Support (CLS)
Operate, maintain, train and sustain the multi-mission Hunter Unmanned Aerial System in addition to deploying Hunter support teams.
I-Kits
Supports Full Rate Production of FBCB2 Version 4 I-KITS (installation kits) for the U.S. Army and Australian ground platform types. Services include Program Operations, Supply Chain Management, Procurement, Stores, Part Kitting and Engineering.
Inertial Navigation Programs
Consists of a wide variety of products across land, sea and space that address the customers’ needs for precise knowledge of position, velocity, attitude, and heading. These applications include platforms, such as the, satellites and ground vehicles as well as for sensors such as radar, MP-RTIP, and
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Program Name
Program Description
EO/IR pods. Many inertial applications require integration with GPS to provide a very high level of precision and long term stability.
Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS)
The Integrated Air & Missile Defense, Battle Command System (IBCS) component concept provides for a common battle management, command, control, communications, computers and intelligence capability with integrated fire control hardware/software product design, integration, and development that supports initial operational capability of the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Increment 2.
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM)
Maintain readiness of the nation’s ICBM weapon system.
Joint Base Operations Support (JBOSC)
Provides all infrastructure support needed for launch and base operations at the NASA Spaceport.
Joint National Integration Center Research and Development Contract (JRDC)
Support the development and application of modeling and simulation, wargaming, test and analytic tools for air and missile defense.
Joint Warfighting Center Support (JWFC)
Provide non-personal general and technical support to the USJFCOM Joint Force Trainer / Joint Warfighting Center to ensure the successful worldwide execution of the Joint Training and Transformation missions.
KC-10
Contractor Logistics Services (CLS) contract supporting the U.S. Air Force KC-10 tanker fleet including depot maintenance, supply chain management, maintenance and management at locations in the United States and worldwide.
Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI)
Develop mobile missile-defense system with the unique capability to destroy a hostile missile during its boost, ascent or midcourse phase of flight. This program was terminated for the U.S. government’s convenience in 2009.
Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM)
Infrared countermeasures systems for C-17 and C-130 aircraft. The IDIQ contract will further allow for the purchase of LAIRCM hardware for foreign military sales and other government agencies.
LHA
Amphibious assault ships that will provide forward presence and power projection as an integral part of joint, interagency, and multinational maritime expeditionary forces.
LHD
The multipurpose amphibious assault ship LHD is the centerpiece of an Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). In wartime, these ships deploy very large numbers of troops and equipment to assault enemy-held beaches. Like LPD, only larger, in times of peace, these ships have ample space for non-combatant evacuations and other humanitarian missions. The program of record is 8 ships of which Makin Island (LHD 8) is the last.
LITENING targeting pod system (LITENING)
A self-contained, multi-sensor weapon aiming system that enables fighter pilots to detect, acquire, auto-track and identify targets for highly accurate delivery of both conventional and precision-guided weapons.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Program Name
Program Description
Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV)
Contract awarded by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command for the development, fabrication, integration, certification and performance of one LEMV system. It is a state- of-the-art, lighter-than-air airship designed to provide ground troops with persistent surveillance. Development and demonstration of the first airship is scheduled to be completed December 2011. The contract also includes options for two additional airships and in-country support.
LPD
The LPD 17 San Antonio-class is the newest addition to the U.S. Navy’s 21st Century amphibious assault force. The 684-foot-long, 105-foot-wide ships have a crew of 360 and are used to transport and land 700 to 800 Marines, their equipment, and supplies by embarked air cushion or conventional landing craft and assault vehicles, augmented by helicopters or other rotary wing aircraft. The ships will support amphibious assault, special operations, or expeditionary warfare & humanitarian missions.
MESA Radar Product
The Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) Radar product line provides an Advanced AESA Radar for AEW&C mission on a Boeing 737 Aircraft. This product is currently under contract with three international customers.
National Level Exercise 2009 (NLE)
Provide program management and the necessary technical expertise to assist the FEMA National Exercise Division with planning, conducting and evaluating the FY09 Tier 1 National Level Exercise (NLE 09).
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)
Design, develop, integrate, test, and operate an integrated system comprised of two satellites with mission sensors and associated ground elements for providing global and regional weather and environmental data. This program was restructured in 2010.
Navstar Global Positioning System Operational Control Segment (GPS OCX)
Navstar Global Positioning System Operational Control Segment (GPS OCX) Operational control system for existing and future GPS constellation. Includes all satellite C2, mission planning, constellation management, external interfaces, monitoring stations, and ground antennas. Phase A effort includes effort to accomplish a System Requirements Review (SRR), System Design Review (SDR), and development of a Mission Capabilities Engineering Model (MCEM) prototype.
Navy Unmanned Combat Air System Operational Assessment (N-UCAS)
Navy development/demonstration contract that will design, build and test two demonstration vehicles that will conduct a carrier demonstration.
Nevada Test Site (NTS)
Manage and operate the Nevada Test Site facility and provide infrastructure support, including management of the nuclear explosives safety team, support of hazardous chemical spill testing, emergency response training and conventional weapons testing.
New York City Wireless Network (NYCWiN)
Provide New York City’s broadband public- safety wireless network.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Program Name
Program Description
Saudi Arabian National Guard Modernization and Training (SANG)
Provide military training, logistics and support services to modernize the Saudi Arabian National Guard’s capabilities to unilaterally execute and sustain military operations.
Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS)
Space-based surveillance systems for missile warning, missile defense, battlespace characterization and technical intelligence. SBIRS will meet United Stated infrared space surveillance needs through the next 2-3 decades.
Trailer Mounted Support System (TMSS)
Trailer Mounted Support System is a key part of the Army’s SICPS Program providing workspace, power distribution, lighting, environmental conditioning (heating and cooling) tables and a common grounding system for commanders and staff at all echelons.
Transformational Satellite Communication System (TSAT) - Risk Reduction and System Definition (RR&SD)
Design, develop, brassboard and demonstrate key technologies to reduce risk in the TSAT space element and perform additional risk mitigation activities. This program was terminated in 2009.
USS Carl Vinson
Refueling and complex overhaul of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70).
USS George H. W. Bush
The 10th and final Nimitz-class aircraft carrier that will incorporate many new design features, commissioned in early 2009 (CVN 77).
USS Theodore Roosevelt
Refueling and complex overhaul of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71).
USS Toledo Depot Modernization Period (DMP)
Provide routine dry dock work, tank blasting and coating, hull preservation, propulsion and ship system repairs and limited enhancements to various hull, mechanical and electrical systems for the USS Toledo.
Vehicular Intercommunications Systems (VIS)
Provide clear and noise-free communications between crew members inside combat vehicles and externally over as many as six combat net radios for the U.S. Army. The active noise- reduction features of VIS provide significant improvement in speech intelligibility, hearing protection, and vehicle crew performance.
Virginia-class Submarines
Construct the newest attack submarine in conjunction with General Dynamics Electric Boat.
Virginia IT Outsource (VITA)
Provide high-level IT consulting, IT infrastructure and services to Virginia state and local agencies including data center, help desk, desktop, network, applications and cross- functional services.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION

ITEM 7A - QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
Item 7A.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
Interest Rates - We are exposed to market risk, primarily related to interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates. Financial instruments subject to interest rate risk include variable-rate short-term borrowings under the credit agreement and short-term investments. At December 31, 2010, substantially all outstanding borrowings were fixed-rate long-term debt obligations of which a significant portion are not callable until maturity. We have a modest exposure to interest rate risk resulting from an interest swap agreement. Our sensitivity to a 1 percent change in interest rates is tied to our $2 billion credit agreement, which had no balance outstanding at December 31, 2010, or 2009, and to our interest rate swap agreement. See Note 14 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II,

ITEM 8 - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Item 8.
Derivatives - We do not hold or issue derivative financial instruments for trading purposes. We may enter into interest rate swap agreements to manage our exposure to interest rate fluctuations. At December 31, 2010, and 2009, we had one interest rate swap agreement in effect. See Notes 1 and 13 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8.
Foreign Currency - We enter into foreign currency forward contracts to manage foreign currency exchange rate risk related to receipts from customers and payments to suppliers denominated in foreign currencies. At December 31, 2010, and 2009, the amount of foreign currency forward contracts outstanding was not material. We do not consider the market risk exposure relating to foreign currency exchange to be material to the consolidated financial statements. See Notes 1 and 13 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Los Angeles, California
We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of financial position of Northrop Grumman Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2010. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Northrop Grumman Corporation and subsidiaries at December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2010, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, based on the criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 8, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Los Angeles, California
February 8, 2011
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Nature of Operations - Northrop Grumman Corporation and its subsidiaries (Northrop Grumman or the company) provide technologically advanced, innovative products, services, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services. In January 2009, the company streamlined its organizational structure by reducing the number of operating segments from seven to five. The five segments are Aerospace Systems, Electronic Systems, Information Systems, Shipbuilding and Technical Services. Product sales are predominantly generated in the Aerospace Systems, Electronic Systems and Shipbuilding segments, while the majority of the company’s service revenues are generated by the Information Systems and Technical Services segments.
Aerospace Systems is a leading developer, integrator, producer and supporter of manned and unmanned aircraft, spacecraft, high-energy laser systems, microelectronics and other systems and subsystems critical to maintaining the nation’s security and leadership in technology. These systems are used, primarily by U.S. Government customers, in many different mission areas including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; communications; battle management; strike operations; electronic warfare; missile defense; earth observation; space science; and space exploration.
Electronic Systems is a leader in the design, development, manufacture, and support of solutions for sensing, understanding, anticipating, and controlling the environment for our global military, civil, and commercial customers and their operations. The segment provides a variety of defense electronics and systems, airborne fire control radars, situational awareness systems, early warning systems, airspace management systems, navigation systems, communications systems, marine systems, space systems, and logistics services.
Information Systems is a leading global provider of advanced solutions for Department of Defense (DoD), national intelligence, federal civilian, state and local agencies, and commercial customers. Products and services are focused on the fields of command, control, communications, computers and intelligence; air and missile defense; airborne reconnaissance; intelligence processing; decision support systems; cybersecurity; information technology; and systems engineering and integration.
Shipbuilding is the nation’s sole industrial designer, builder and refueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the sole supplier and builder of amphibious assault and expeditionary warfare ships to the U.S. Navy, the sole builder of National Security Cutters for the U.S. Coast Guard, one of only two companies currently designing and building nuclear-powered submarines for the U.S. Navy and one of only two companies that builds the U.S. Navy’s current fleet of DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Shipbuilding is also a full-service systems provider for the design, engineering, construction and life cycle support of major programs for surface ships and a provider of fleet support and maintenance services for the U.S. Navy.
Technical Services is a provider of logistics, infrastructure, and sustainment support, while also providing a wide array of technical services, including training and simulation.
As prime contractor, principal subcontractor, partner, or preferred supplier, Northrop Grumman participates in many high-priority defense and non-defense technology programs in the U.S. and abroad. Northrop Grumman conducts most of its business with the U.S. Government, principally the DoD. The company is therefore affected by, among other things, the federal budget process. The company also conducts business with local, state, and foreign governments and generates domestic and international commercial sales.
Financial Statement Reclassification - Certain amounts in the prior year financial statements and related notes have been reclassified to conform to the current presentation of the businesses described in Note 8.
Principles of Consolidation - The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Northrop Grumman and its subsidiaries. All intercompany accounts, transactions, and profits among Northrop Grumman and its subsidiaries are eliminated in consolidation.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Accounting Estimates - The company’s financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). The preparation thereof requires management to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingencies at the date of the financial statements as well as the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Estimates have been prepared on the basis of the most current and best available information and actual results could differ materially from those estimates.
Revenue Recognition - The majority of the company’s business is derived from long-term contracts for production of goods, and services provided to the federal government. In accounting for these contracts, the company extensively utilizes the cost-to-cost and the units-of-delivery measures of the percentage-of-completion method of accounting. Sales under cost-reimbursement contracts and construction-type contracts that provide for delivery at a low volume per year or a small number of units after a lengthy period of time over which a significant amount of costs have been incurred are accounted for using the cost-to-cost method. Under this method, sales, including estimated earned fees or profits, are recorded as costs are incurred. For most contracts, sales are calculated based on the percentage that total costs incurred bear to total estimated costs at completion. For certain contracts with large up-front purchases of material, primarily in the Shipbuilding segment, sales are calculated based on the percentage that direct labor costs incurred bear to total estimated direct labor costs. Sales under construction-type contracts that provide for delivery at a high volume per year are accounted for using the units-of-delivery method. Under this method, sales are recognized as deliveries are made to the customer generally using unit sales values for delivered units in accordance with the contract terms. The company estimates profit as the difference between total estimated revenue and total estimated cost of a contract and recognizes that profit over the life of the contract based on deliveries or as computed on the basis of the estimated final average unit costs plus profit. The company classifies contract revenues as product sales or service revenues depending upon the predominant attributes of the relevant underlying contracts.
Certain contracts contain provisions for price redetermination or for cost and/or performance incentives. Such redetermined amounts or incentives are included in sales when the amounts can reasonably be determined and estimated. Amounts representing contract change orders, claims, requests for equitable adjustment, or limitations in funding are included in sales only when they can be reliably estimated and realization is probable.
In the period in which it is determined that a loss will result from the performance of a contract, the entire amount of the estimated ultimate loss is charged against income. Loss provisions are first offset against costs that are included in unbilled accounts receivable or inventoried costs, with any remaining amount reflected in liabilities. Changes in estimates of contract sales, costs, and profits are recognized using the cumulative catch-up method of accounting. This method recognizes in the current period the cumulative effect of the changes on current and prior periods. Hence, the effect of the changes on future periods of contract performance is recognized as if the revised estimate had been used since contract inception. A significant change in an estimate on one or more contracts could have a material effect on the company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations, and where such changes occur, separate disclosure is made of the nature, underlying conditions and financial impact of the change.
Revenue under contracts to provide services to non-federal government customers are generally recognized when services are performed. Service contracts include operations and maintenance contracts, and outsourcing-type arrangements, primarily in the Technical Services and Information Systems segments. Revenue under such contracts is generally recognized on a straight-line basis over the period of contract performance, unless evidence suggests that the revenue is earned or the obligations are fulfilled in a different pattern. Costs incurred under these service contracts are expensed as incurred, except that direct and incremental set-up costs are capitalized and amortized over the life of the agreement (see Outsourcing Contract Costs below). Operating profit related to such service contracts may fluctuate from period to period, particularly in the earlier phases of the contract.
For contracts that include more than one type of product or service, revenue recognition includes the proper identification of separate units of accounting and the allocation of revenue across all elements based on relative fair values.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
General and Administrative Expenses - In accordance with industry practice and the regulations that govern the cost accounting requirements for government contracts, most general corporate expenses incurred at both the segment and corporate locations are considered allowable and allocable costs on government contracts. For most components of the company, these costs are allocated to contracts in progress on a systematic basis and contract performance factors include this cost component as an element of cost. General and administrative expenses primarily relate to segment operations.
Research and Development - Company-sponsored research and development activities primarily include independent research and development (IR&D) efforts related to government programs. IR&D expenses are included in general and administrative expenses and are generally allocated to government contracts. Company-sponsored IR&D expenses totaled $603 million, $610 million, and $564 million, in 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively. Expenses for research and development sponsored by the customer are charged directly to the related contracts.
Restructuring Costs - In accordance with the regulations that govern the cost accounting requirements for government contracts, certain costs incurred for consolidation or restructuring activities that demonstrate savings in excess of the cost to implement those actions can be deferred and amortized as allowable and allocable costs on government contracts. Such deferred costs are not expected to have a material to the company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations (see Note 7).
Product Warranty Costs - The company provides certain product warranties that require repair or replacement of non-conforming items for a specified period of time often subject to a specified monetary coverage limit. Substantially all of the company’s product warranties are provided under government contracts, the costs of which are immaterial and are accounted for using the percentage-of- completion method of accounting. Accrued product warranty costs for the remainder of our products (which are almost entirely commercial products) are not material.
Environmental Costs - Environmental liabilities are accrued when the company determines such amounts are reasonably estimable, and management has determined that it is probable that a liability has been incurred. When only a range of amounts is established and no amount within the range is more probable than another, the minimum amount in the range is recorded. Environmental liabilities are recorded on an undiscounted basis. At sites involving multiple parties, the company accrues environmental liabilities based upon its expected share of liability, taking into account the financial viability of other jointly liable parties. Environmental expenditures are expensed or capitalized as appropriate. Capitalized expenditures relate to long-lived improvements in currently operating facilities. The company does not anticipate and record insurance recoveries before collection is probable. At December 31, 2010, and 2009, the company did not have any accrued receivables related to insurance reimbursements.
Fair Value of Financial Instruments - The company utilizes fair value measurement guidance prescribed by GAAP to value its financial instruments. The guidance includes a definition of fair value, prescribes methods for measuring fair value, establishes a fair value hierarchy based on the inputs used to measure fair value and expands disclosures about the use of fair value measurements.
The valuation techniques utilized are based upon observable and unobservable inputs. Observable inputs reflect market data obtained from independent sources, while unobservable inputs reflect internal market assumptions. These two types of inputs create the following fair value hierarchy:
Level 1 - Quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets.
Level 2 - Quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active; and model-derived valuations whose inputs are observable or whose significant value drivers are observable.
Level 3 - Significant inputs to the valuation model are unobservable.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Derivative Financial Instruments - Derivative financial instruments are recognized as assets or liabilities in the financial statements and measured at fair value. Changes in the fair value of derivative financial instruments that qualify and are designated as fair value hedges are required to be recorded in income from continuing operations, while the effective portion of the changes in the fair value of derivative financial instruments that qualify and are designated as cash flow hedges are recorded in other comprehensive income. The company may use derivative financial instruments to manage its exposure to interest rate and foreign currency exchange risks and to balance its fixed and variable rate long-term debt portfolio. The company does not use derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes, nor does it use leveraged financial instruments. Credit risk related to derivative financial instruments is considered minimal and is managed by requiring high credit standards for counterparties and through periodic settlements of positions.
For derivative financial instruments not designated as hedging instruments, gains or losses resulting from changes in the fair value are reported in Other, net in the consolidated statements of operations.
Income Taxes - Provisions for federal, foreign, state, and local income taxes are calculated on reported financial statement pre-tax income based on current tax law and include the cumulative effect of any changes in tax rates from those used previously in determining deferred tax assets and liabilities. Such provisions differ from the amounts currently payable because certain items of income and expense are recognized in different time periods for financial reporting purposes than for income tax purposes. If a tax position does not meet the minimum statutory threshold to avoid payment of penalties, the company recognizes an expense for the amount of the penalty in the period the tax position is claimed in the tax return of the company. The company recognizes interest accrued related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense. Penalties, if probable and reasonably estimable, are recognized as a component of income tax expense. State and local income and franchise tax provisions are allocable to contracts in process and, accordingly, are included in general and administrative expenses.
The company makes a comprehensive review of its portfolio of uncertain tax positions regularly. In this regard, an uncertain tax position represents the company’s expected treatment of a tax position taken in a filed tax return, or planned to be taken in a future tax return or claim, that has not been reflected in measuring income tax expense for financial reporting purposes. Until these positions are sustained by the taxing authorities, the company does not recognize the tax benefits resulting from such positions and reports the tax effects as a liability for uncertain tax positions in its consolidated statements of financial position.
Cash and cash equivalents - For cash and cash equivalents, the carrying amounts approximate fair value due to the short-term nature of these items. Cash and cash equivalents include short-term interest-earning debt instruments that mature in three months or less from the date purchased.
Marketable Securities - At December 31, 2010, and 2009, substantially all of the company’s investments in marketable securities were classified as available-for-sale or trading. For available-for-sale securities, any unrealized gains and losses are reported as a separate component of shareholders’ equity. Unrealized gains and losses on trading securities are included in Other, net in the consolidated statements of operations. Investments in marketable securities are recorded at fair value.
Accounts Receivable - Accounts receivable include amounts billed and currently due from customers, amounts currently due but unbilled (primarily related to contracts accounted for under the cost-to-cost measure of the percentage-of-completion method of accounting), certain estimated contract change amounts, claims or requests for equitable adjustment in negotiation that are probable of recovery, and amounts retained by the customer pending contract completion.
Inventoried Costs - Inventoried costs primarily relate to work in process under fixed-price, units-of-delivery and fixed-priced-incentive contracts using labor dollars as the basis of the percentage-of-completion calculation. These costs represent accumulated contract costs less the portion of such costs allocated to delivered items. Accumulated contract costs include direct production costs, factory and engineering overhead, production
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
tooling costs, and, for government contracts, allowable general and administrative expenses. According to the provisions of U.S. Government contracts, the customer asserts title to, or a security interest in, inventories related to such contracts as a result of contract advances, performance-based payments, and progress payments. In accordance with industry practice, inventoried costs are classified as a current asset and include amounts related to contracts having production cycles longer than one year. Product inventory primarily consists of raw materials and is stated at the lower of cost or market, generally using the average cost method. General corporate expenses and IR&D allocable to commercial contracts are expensed as incurred.
Outsourcing Contract Costs - Costs on outsourcing contracts, including costs incurred for bid and proposal activities, are generally expensed as incurred. However, certain costs incurred upon initiation of an outsourcing contract are deferred and expensed over the contract life. These costs represent incremental external costs or certain specific internal costs that are directly related to the contract acquisition and transition/set-up. The primary types of costs that may be capitalized include labor and related fringe benefits, subcontractor costs, and travel costs. The company capitalized $4 million, $57 million, and $111 million and amortized $39 million, $46 million, and $52 million of such costs in 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. At December 31, 2010, and 2009, respectively, deferred outsourcing contract costs of $239 million and $274 million were included in miscellaneous other assets.
Depreciable Properties - Property, plant, and equipment owned by the company are depreciated over the estimated useful lives of individual assets. Most of these assets are depreciated using declining-balance methods, with the remainder using the straight-line method, with the following lives:
Leases - The company uses its incremental borrowing rate in the assessment of lease classification as capital or operating and defines the initial lease term to include renewal options determined to be reasonably assured. The company conducts operations primarily under operating leases.
Many of the company’s real property lease agreements contain incentives for tenant improvements, rent holidays, or rent escalation clauses. For tenant improvement incentives, the company records a deferred rent liability and amortizes the deferred rent over the term of the lease as a reduction to rent expense. For rent holidays and rent escalation clauses during the lease term, the company records minimum rental expenses on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. For purposes of recognizing lease incentives, the company uses the date of initial possession as the commencement date, which is generally when the company is given the right of access to the space and begins to make improvements in preparation of intended use.
Goodwill and Other Purchased Intangible Assets - The company performs impairment tests for goodwill as of November 30th of each year, or when evidence of potential impairment exists. When it is determined that impairment has occurred, a charge to operations is recorded. Goodwill and other purchased intangible asset balances are included in the identifiable assets of the business segment to which they have been assigned. Any goodwill impairment, as well as the amortization of other purchased intangible assets, is charged against the respective business segments’ operating income. Purchased intangible assets are amortized on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives (see Note 12).
Self-Insurance Accruals - Accruals for self-insured workers’ compensation totaling approximately $549 million and $520 million as of December 31, 2010, and 2009, respectively are included in other current liabilities and other long-term liabilities. The company estimates the required liability for such claims on a discounted basis utilizing
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
actuarial methods based on various assumptions, which include, but are not limited to, the company’s historical loss experience and projected loss development factors.
Litigation, Commitments, and Contingencies - Amounts associated with litigation, commitments, and contingencies are recorded as charges to earnings when management, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each matter, including any settlement offers, has determined that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.
Retirement Benefits - The company sponsors various pension plans covering substantially all employees. The company also provides post-retirement benefit plans other than pensions, consisting principally of health care and life insurance benefits, to eligible retirees and qualifying dependents. The liabilities, unamortized benefit plan costs and annual income or expense of the company’s pension and other post-retirement benefit plans are determined using methodologies that involve several actuarial assumptions, the most significant of which are the discount rate, the long-term rate of asset return (based on the market-related value of assets), and the medical cost experience trend rate (rate of growth for medical costs). Unamortized benefit plan costs consist primarily of accumulated net after-tax actuarial losses. Net actuarial gains or losses are re-determined annually and principally arise from gains or losses on plan assets due to variations in the fair market value of the underlying assets and changes in the benefit obligation due to changes in actuarial assumptions. Net actuarial gains or losses are amortized to expense in future periods when they exceed ten percent of the greater of the plan assets or projected benefit obligations by benefit plan. The excess of gains or losses over the ten percent threshold are subject to amortization over the average future service period of employees of approximately ten years. The fair values of plan assets are determined based on prevailing market prices or estimated fair value for investments with no available quoted prices. Not all net periodic pension income or expense is recognized in net earnings in the year incurred because it is allocated to production as product costs, and a portion remains in inventory at the end of a reporting period. The company’s funding policy for pension plans is to contribute, at a minimum, the statutorily required amount to an irrevocable trust.
Stock Compensation - All of the company’s stock compensation plans are considered equity plans, and compensation expense recognized is net of estimated forfeitures over the vesting period. The company issues stock options and stock awards, in the form of restricted performance stock rights and restricted stock rights, under its existing plans. The fair value of stock option grants are estimated on the date of grant using a Black-Scholes option-pricing model and expensed on a straight-line basis over the vesting period of the options, which is generally three to four years. The fair value of stock awards is determined based on the closing market price of the company’s common stock on the grant date and at each reporting date the number of shares is adjusted to equal the number ultimately expected to vest. Compensation expense for stock awards is expensed over the vesting period, usually three to five years.
Foreign Currency Translation - For operations outside the U.S. that prepare financial statements in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, results of operations and cash flows are translated at average exchange rates during the period, and assets and liabilities are generally translated at end-of-period exchange rates. Translation adjustments are included as a separate component of accumulated other comprehensive loss in consolidated shareholders’ equity.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss - The components of accumulated other comprehensive loss are as follows:
2.
ACCOUNTING STANDARDS UPDATES
Accounting Standards Updates Not Yet Effective
Accounting Standards Updates not effective until after December 31, 2010, are not expected to have a significant effect on the company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.
3.
DIVIDENDS ON COMMON STOCK AND CONVERSION OF PREFERRED STOCK
Dividends on Common Stock - In May 2010, the company’s board of directors approved an increase to the quarterly common stock dividend, from $0.43 per share to $0.47 per share, for stockholders of record as of June 1, 2010.
In May 2009, the company’s board of directors approved an increase to the quarterly common stock dividend, from $0.40 per share to $0.43 per share, for stockholders of record as of June 1, 2009.
In April 2008, the company’s board of directors approved an increase to the quarterly common stock dividend, from $0.37 per share to $0.40 per share, for stockholders of record as of June 2, 2008.
Conversion of Preferred Stock - On February 20, 2008, the company’s board of directors approved the redemption of the 3.5 million shares of mandatorily redeemable convertible preferred stock on April 4, 2008. Prior to the redemption date, substantially all of the preferred shares were converted into common stock at the election of stockholders. All remaining unconverted preferred shares were redeemed by the company on the redemption date. As a result of the conversion and redemption, the company issued approximately 6.4 million shares of common stock.
4.
EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share - Basic earnings (loss) per share from continuing operations are calculated by dividing earnings (loss) from continuing operations available to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding during each period.
Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share - Diluted earnings per share include the dilutive effect of stock options and other stock awards granted to employees under stock-based compensation plans. The dilutive effect of these securities totaled 4.2 million and 4.1 million shares for the year ended December 31, 2010, and 2009. For the year ended December 31, 2008, the potential dilutive effect of 7.1 million shares from these securities and the mandatorily redeemable convertible preferred stock (see Note 3) were excluded from the computation of weighted-average dilutive shares outstanding as the shares would have had an anti-dilutive effect on the loss per share computation.
The weighted-average diluted shares outstanding for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, exclude anti-dilutive stock options to purchase approximately 2.8 million shares, 8.1 million shares, and 2.1 million shares, respectively, because such options have exercise prices in excess of the average market price of the company’s common stock during the year.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Share Repurchases - The table below summarizes the company’s share repurchases beginning January 1, 2008:
(1)
On June 16, 2010, the company’s board of directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $2 billion of the company’s common stock. As of the end of the fourth quarter 2010, the company had $1.8 billion remaining under this authorization for share repurchases.
(2)
Includes commissions paid and calculated as the average price per share since the repurchase program authorization date.
Share repurchases take place at management’s discretion or under pre-established non-discretionary programs from time to time, depending on market conditions, in the open market, and in privately negotiated transactions. The company retires its common stock upon repurchase and has not made any purchases of common stock other than in connection with these publicly announced repurchase programs.
5.
BUSINESS ACQUISITIONS
2009 - In April 2009, the company acquired Sonoma Photonics, Inc., as well as assets from Swift Engineering’s Killer Bee Unmanned Air Systems product line for an aggregate amount of approximately $33 million in cash. The operating results of these businesses are reported in the Aerospace Systems segment from the date of acquisition. The assets, liabilities, and results of operations of these businesses were not material to the company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations, and thus pro-forma financial information is not presented.
2008 - In October 2008, the company acquired 3001 International, Inc. (3001 Inc.) for approximately $92 million in cash. 3001 Inc. provides geospatial data production and analysis, including airborne imaging, surveying, mapping and geographic information systems for U.S. and international government intelligence, defense and civilian customers. The operating results of 3001 Inc. are reported in the Information Systems segment from the date of acquisition. The assets, liabilities, and results of operations of 3001 Inc. are not material to the company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations, and thus pro-forma information is not presented.
6.
BUSINESS DISPOSITIONS
2009 - In December 2009, the company sold ASD for $1.65 billion in cash to an investor group led by General Atlantic, LLC, and affiliates of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., and recognized a gain of $15 million, net of taxes. ASD was a business unit comprised of the assets and liabilities of TASC, Inc., its wholly-owned subsidiary TASC Services Corporation, and certain contracts carved out from other Northrop Grumman businesses also in Information Systems that provide systems engineering technical assistance (SETA) and other analysis and advisory services. Sales for this business in the years ended December 31, 2009, and 2008, were approximately $1.5 billion, and $1.6 billion, respectively. The assets, liabilities and operating results of this business unit are reported as discontinued operations in the consolidated statements of operations for all periods presented.
2008 - In April 2008, the company sold its Electro-Optical Systems (EOS) business for $175 million in cash to L-3 Communications Corporation and recognized a gain of $19 million, net of taxes. EOS, formerly a part of the Electronic Systems segment, produces night vision and applied optics products. Sales for this business through April 2008 were approximately $53 million. The assets, liabilities and operating results of this business are reported as discontinued operations in the consolidated statements of operations for all periods presented.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Discontinued Operations - Earnings for the businesses classified within discontinued operations (primarily the result of the sale of ASD discussed above) were as follows:
Tax rates on discontinued operations vary from the company’s effective tax rate generally due to the non-deductibility of goodwill for tax purposes and the effects, if any, of capital loss carryforwards.
7.
SHIPBUILDING STRATEGIC ACTIONS
In July 2010, the company announced plans to consolidate its Gulf Coast shipbuilding operations by winding down its shipbuilding operations at the Avondale, Louisiana facility in 2013 after completing the LPD-class ships currently under construction there. Future LPD-class ships will be built in a single production line at the company’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility. The consolidation is intended to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and address shipbuilding overcapacity. Due to the consolidation, the company expects higher costs to complete ships currently under construction in Avondale due to anticipated reductions in productivity and increased the estimates to complete LPDs 23 and 25 by approximately $210 million. The company recognized a $113 million pre-tax charge to Shipbuilding’s operating income for these contracts during the second quarter of 2010. The company is currently exploring alternative uses of the Avondale facility by potential new owners, including alternative opportunities for the workforce there.
In addition, the company anticipates that it will incur substantial restructuring and facilities shutdown-related costs, including, but not limited to, severance, relocation expense, and asset write-downs related to the Avondale facility decision. These costs are expected to be allowable expenses under government accounting standards and are expected to be recoverable in future years’ overhead costs. These future costs could approximate $310 million and such costs should be allocable to existing flexibly priced contracts or future negotiated contracts at the Gulf Coast operations in accordance with FAR provisions relating to the treatment of restructuring and shutdown related costs.
In its initial audit report on the company’s cost proposal for the restructuring and shutdown related costs, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) stated that, in general, the proposal was not adequately supported in order for them to reach a conclusion. They also questioned approximately ten percent of the costs submitted and did not accept the cost proposal as submitted. The company intends to resubmit its proposal to address the concerns expressed by the DCAA. Ultimately, the company anticipates that this process will result in an agreement with the U.S. Navy that is substantially in accord with management’s cost allowability expectations. Accordingly, the company has treated these costs as allowable costs in determining the cost and earnings performance on Shipbuilding’s contracts in process. If there is a formal challenge to the company’s treatment of its restructuring costs, there are prescribed dispute resolution alternatives to resolve such a challenge and the company would likely pursue a dispute resolution process.
The company also announced in July 2010 that it would evaluate whether a separation of the Shipbuilding segment would be in the best interests of shareholders, customers, and employees by allowing both the company and the Shipbuilding segment to more effectively pursue their respective opportunities to maximize long-term
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
value. Strategic alternatives for the Shipbuilding segment include, but are not limited to, a spin-off to the company’s shareholders. While the company continues its evaluation of strategic alternatives for the Shipbuilding segment, it will continue to be reported in continuing operations.
In preparation for an anticipated spin-off to the company’s shareholders, a registration statement on Form 10 for the shares of Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII or the Shipbuilding business) was initially filed with the SEC in October 2010, with amendments filed in November 2010, December 2010 and January 2011. Additionally, in connection with, and prior to, the anticipated spin-off, the company repurchased $178 million of the Gulf Opportunity Zone Industrial Revenue Development Bonds (see Note 14).
8.
SEGMENT INFORMATION
At December 31, 2010, the company was aligned into five reportable segments: Aerospace Systems, Electronic Systems, Information Systems, Shipbuilding, and Technical Services.
The company, from time to time, acquires or disposes of businesses, and realigns contracts, programs or business areas among and within its operating segments that possess similar customers, expertise, and capabilities. Internal realignments are designed to more fully leverage existing capabilities and enhance development and delivery of products and services.
Segment Realignments - In January 2010, the company transferred its internal information technology services unit from the Information Systems segment to the company’s corporate shared services group. The intersegment sales and operating income for this unit that were previously recognized in the Information Systems segment are immaterial and have been eliminated for all periods presented.
In January 2009, the company streamlined its organizational structure by reducing the number of operating segments from seven to five. The five segments are Aerospace Systems, which combines the former Integrated Systems and Space Technology segments; Electronic Systems; Information Systems, which combines the former Information Technology and Mission Systems segments; Shipbuilding; and Technical Services. Creation of the Aerospace Systems and Information Systems segments is intended to strengthen alignment with customers, improve the company’s ability to execute on programs and win new business, and enhance cost competitiveness. Product sales are predominantly generated in the Aerospace Systems, Electronic Systems and Shipbuilding segments, while the majority of the company’s service revenues are generated by the Information Systems and Technical Services segments.
During the first quarter of 2009, the company realigned certain logistics, services, and technical support programs and transferred assets from the Information Systems and Electronic Systems segments to the Technical Services segment. This realignment is intended to strengthen the company’s core capability in aircraft and electronics maintenance, repair and overhaul, life cycle optimization, and training and simulation services.
Sales and segment operating income in the tables below have been revised to reflect the above realignments for all periods presented.
During the first quarter of 2009, the company transferred certain optics and laser programs from the Information Systems segment to the Aerospace Systems segment. As the operating results of this business were not considered material, the prior year sales and segment operating income were not reclassified to reflect this business transfer.
U.S. Government Sales - Revenue from the U.S. Government (which includes Foreign Military Sales) includes revenue from contracts for which Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor as well as those for which the company is a subcontractor and the ultimate customer is the U.S. Government. All of the company’s segments derive substantial revenue from the U.S. Government. Sales to the U.S. Government amounted to approximately $32.1 billion, $31.0 billion, and $29.3 billion, or 92.3 percent, 91.8 percent, and 90.7 percent, of total revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Foreign Sales - Direct foreign sales amounted to approximately $1.6 billion, $1.6 billion, and $1.7 billion, or 4.6 percent, 4.9 percent, and 5.3 percent of total revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively.
Discontinued Operations - The company’s discontinued operations are excluded from all of the data elements in the following tables, except for assets by segment.
Assets - Substantially all of the company’s assets are located or maintained in the U. S.
Results of Operations By Segment
Goodwill Impairment Charge - The total segment operating loss for the year ended December 31, 2008, reflects goodwill impairment charges of $570 million and $2,490 million, at Aerospace Systems and Shipbuilding, respectively. The impairment charge was primarily due to adverse equity market conditions that caused a decrease in market multiples and the company’s stock price.
Shipbuilding Earnings Charges - In 2010, the company recorded a pre-tax charge of $113 million related to the consolidation of the company’s Gulf Coast facilities (see Note 7). In 2008, the company recorded a pre-tax charge of $272 million for cost growth on the LHD 8 contract and an additional $54 million primarily for schedule impacts on other ships and impairment of purchased intangibles at the Gulf Coast shipyards.
Unallocated Corporate Expenses - Unallocated corporate expenses generally include the portion of corporate expenses not considered allowable or allocable under applicable U.S. Government Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) regulations and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and therefore not allocated to the segments,
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
for costs related to management and administration, legal, environmental, certain compensation and retiree benefits, and other expenses.
Net Pension Adjustment - The net pension adjustment reflects the difference between pension expense determined in accordance with GAAP and pension expense allocated to the operating segments determined in accordance with CAS.
Royalty Income Adjustment - Royalty income is included in segment operating income and reclassified to other income for financial reporting purposes. The royalty income adjustment for the year ended December 31, 2008, includes $60 million related to patent infringement settlements at Electronic Systems.
Intersegment Sales and Margin
To encourage commerce between operating units, sales between segments are recorded at values that include a hypothetical margin for the performing segment based on that segment’s estimated margin rate for external sales. Such hypothetical margins are eliminated in consolidation. Intersegment sales and operating income were as follows:
Other Financial Information
Corporate assets principally consists of cash and cash equivalents and deferred tax assets.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
The depreciation and amortization expense above includes amortization of purchased intangible assets as well as amortization of deferred and other outsourcing costs.
9.
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, NET
Unbilled amounts represent sales for which billings have not been presented to customers at year-end. These amounts are usually billed and collected within one year. Progress payments are received on a number of firm fixed-price contracts. Unbilled amounts are presented net of progress payments of $6.4 billion and $5.6 billion at December 31, 2010, and 2009, respectively.
Accounts receivable at December 31, 2010, are expected to be collected in 2011, except for approximately $133 million due in 2012 and $29 million due in 2013 and later.
The company does not believe it has significant exposure to credit risk as accounts receivable and the related unbilled amounts are primarily due from the U.S. Government. The company applied the GAAP guidance related to “Accounts Receivable - Credit Quality of Financing Receivables” on a prospective basis. Accordingly, accruals for potential overhead rate adjustments and other costs that were previously reported as an allowance for doubtful amounts have been reclassified to other current liabilities at December 31, 2010.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Accounts receivable consisted of the following:
10.
INVENTORIED COSTS, NET
Inventoried costs consisted of the following:
11.
INCOME TAXES
The company’s effective tax rate on earnings from continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 2010 was 21.5 percent, as compared with 30.6 percent and 33.8 percent in 2009 and 2008, respectively (excluding for 2008 the non-cash, non-deductible goodwill impairment charge of $3.1 billion at Aerospace Systems and Shipbuilding). The company’s effective tax rates reflect tax credits, manufacturing deductions and the impact of settlements with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
In 2010, the company received final approval from the IRS and the U.S. Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (Joint Committee) of the IRS’ examination of the company’s tax returns for the years 2004 through 2006. As a result of the settlement, the company recognized net tax benefits of approximately $296 million (of which $66 million was in cash), which were recorded as a reduction to the company’s provision for income taxes.
During 2009, the company reached a final settlement with the IRS regarding its audit of the company’s tax returns for the years ended December 31, 2001 through 2003 and recognized $75 million of net benefit upon settlement, including $20 million of interest. During 2008, the company reached a final settlement with the IRS regarding its audit of the TRW tax returns for the years ended 1999 through 2002 and recognized $35 million of benefit upon settlement, including $4 million of interest.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Income tax expense, both federal and foreign, consisted of the following:
The geographic source of earnings (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes is as follows:
Income tax expense differs from the amount computed by multiplying the statutory federal income tax rate times the earnings (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes due to the following:
Uncertain Tax Positions - In 2010, the company reached a final settlement with the IRS and Joint Committee with respect to the IRS’ examination of the company’s tax returns for the years 2004 through 2006. As a result of this settlement, the company reduced its liability for uncertain tax positions, including previously accrued interest, by $311 million, which was recorded as a reduction to the company’s effective tax rate.
In 2009, the company reached a final settlement agreement with the IRS and Joint Committee with respect to the IRS’ examination of the company’s tax returns for the years 2001 through 2003. As a result of this settlement, the company reduced its liability for uncertain tax positions by $60 million, which was recorded as a reduction to the company’s effective tax rate.
In 2008, the company reached a final settlement agreement with the IRS and Joint Committee with respect to the IRS’ audit of the TRW tax returns for the years 1999 through 2002. As a result of this settlement, the company reduced its liability for uncertain tax positions by $126 million (including accrued interest of $44 million), $95 million of which was recorded as a reduction of goodwill.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
As of December 31, 2010, the estimated value of the company’s uncertain tax positions which are more-likely-than-not to be sustained on examination was a liability of $137 million which includes accrued interest of $11 million. This liability is included in other current liabilities and other long-term liabilities in the consolidated statements of financial position. Assuming sustainment of these positions by the taxing authorities, the reversal of the amounts accrued would reduce the company’s effective tax rate.
Unrecognized Tax Benefits - Unrecognized tax benefits represent the gross value of the company’s tax positions that have not been reflected in the consolidated statements of operations and includes the value of the company’s recorded uncertain tax positions. If the income tax benefits from these tax positions are ultimately realized, such realization would affect the company’s effective tax rate.
The change in unrecognized tax benefits during 2010 and 2009, excluding interest, is as follows:
Although the company believes that it has adequately provided for all of its tax positions, amounts asserted by taxing authorities in future years could be greater than the company’s accrued positions. Accordingly, additional provisions on income tax related matters could be recorded in the future due to revised estimates, settlement or other resolution of the underlying tax matters. In addition, open tax years related to state and foreign jurisdictions remain subject to examination but are not considered material. The IRS is currently conducting an examination of the company’s tax returns for the years 2007 through 2009.
During the year ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, the company recorded approximately $88 million, $6 million, and $(29) million of net interest income (expense), respectively, within its federal and foreign, and state income tax provisions.
Deferred Income Taxes - Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and tax purposes. Such amounts are classified in the consolidated statements of financial position as current or noncurrent assets or liabilities based upon the classification of the related assets and liabilities.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
The tax effects of significant temporary differences and carryforwards that gave rise to year-end deferred federal, state and foreign tax balances, as presented in the consolidated statements of financial position, are as follows:
Net deferred tax assets (liabilities) as presented in the consolidated statements of financial position are as follows:
Foreign Income - As of December 31, 2010, the company had approximately $668 million of accumulated undistributed earnings generated by its foreign subsidiaries. No deferred tax liability has been recorded on these earnings since the company intends to permanently reinvest these earnings, thereby indefinitely postponing their remittance. Should these earnings be distributed in the form of dividends or otherwise, the distributions would be subject to U.S. federal income tax at the statutory rate of 35 percent, less foreign tax credits available to offset such distributions, if any. In addition, such distributions would be subject to withholding taxes in the various tax jurisdictions.
12.
GOODWILL AND OTHER PURCHASED INTANGIBLE ASSETS
Goodwill
Goodwill and other purchased intangible assets are included in the identifiable assets of the segment to which they have been assigned. Impairment tests are performed at least annually and more often as circumstances require. Any goodwill impairment, as well as the amortization of other purchased intangible assets, is charged against the respective segment’s operating income. The annual impairment test for all segments was performed as of November 30, 2010, with no indication of impairment. In performing the goodwill impairment tests, the company uses a discounted cash flow approach corroborated by comparative market multiples, where appropriate, to determine the fair value of its businesses. Accumulated goodwill impairment losses at December 31, 2010, and
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
2009, totaled $3.1 billion of which $570 million and $2,490 million were at the Aerospace Systems and Shipbuilding segments, respectively.
The changes in the carrying amounts of goodwill during 2009 were as follows:
Segment Realignments - As discussed in Note 8, in January 2009, the company realigned certain logistics, services, and technical support programs and transferred assets from the Information Systems and Electronic Systems segments to the Technical Services segment. As a result of this realignment, goodwill of approximately $123 million was reallocated among these segments. Additionally during the first quarter of 2009, the company transferred certain optics and laser programs from the Information Systems segment to the Aerospace Systems segment, resulting in the reallocation of goodwill of approximately $41 million.
Purchased Intangible Assets
The table below summarizes the company’s aggregate purchased intangible assets:
The company’s purchased intangible assets are subject to amortization and are being amortized on a straight-line basis over an aggregate weighted-average period of 33 years. Aggregate amortization expense for 2010, 2009, and 2008, was $94 million, $104 million, and $136 million, respectively. The 2008 amount includes a $19 million impairment of purchased intangibles recorded in the first quarter of 2008 associated with the LHD 8 and other Gulf Coast shipbuilding programs.
The table below shows expected amortization for purchased intangibles as of December 31, 2010, for each of the next five years:
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
13.
FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
Investments in Marketable Securities - The company holds a portfolio of marketable securities, primarily consisting of equity securities that are classified as either trading or available-for-sale and can be liquidated without restriction. These assets are recorded at fair value, substantially all of which are based upon quoted market prices for identical instruments in active markets (Level 1 inputs). As of December 31, 2010, and 2009, respectively, there were marketable equity securities of $68 million and $58 million included in prepaid expenses and other current assets and $262 million and $233 million of marketable equity securities included in miscellaneous other assets in the consolidated statements of financial position.
Derivative Financial Instruments and Hedging Activities - The company utilizes derivative financial instruments in order to manage exposure to interest rate risk and foreign currency exchange rate risk. The company does not use derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes, nor does it use leveraged financial instruments. Interest rate swap agreements utilize floating interest rates as an offset to the fixed-rate characteristics of certain long-term debt instruments. Foreign currency forward contracts are used to manage foreign currency exchange rate risk related to receipts from customers and payments to suppliers denominated in foreign currencies.
Derivative financial instruments are recognized as assets or liabilities in the financial statements and measured at fair value, substantially all of which are based on active or inactive markets for identical of similar instruments or model-derived valuations whose inputs are observable (Level 2 inputs). Where model-derived valuations are appropriate, the company utilizes the income approach to determine fair value and uses the applicable London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) swap rate as the discount rate. Changes in the fair value of derivative financial instruments that qualify and are designated as fair value hedges are recorded in earnings from continuing operations, while the effective portion of the changes in the fair value of derivative financial instruments that qualify and are designated as cash flow hedges are recorded in other comprehensive income. Credit risk related to derivative financial instruments is considered minimal and is managed by requiring high credit standards for counterparties and through periodic settlements of positions.
For derivative financial instruments not designated as hedging instruments as well as the ineffective portion of cash flow hedges, gains or losses resulting from changes in the fair value are reported in Other, net in the consolidated statements of operations. Unrealized gains or losses on cash flow hedges are reclassified from other comprehensive income to earnings from continuing operations upon the recognition of the underlying transactions.
As of December 31, 2010, an interest rate swap with a notional value of $200 million, and foreign currency purchase and sale forward contract agreements with notional values of $52 million and $86 million, respectively, were designated for hedge accounting. The remaining notional values outstanding at December 31, 2010, under foreign currency purchase and sale forward contracts of $12 million and $75 million, respectively, were not designated for hedge accounting.
As of December 31, 2009, an interest rate swap with a notional value of $200 million, and foreign currency purchase and sale forward contract agreements with notional values of $77 million and $151 million, respectively, were designated as hedging instruments. The remaining notional values outstanding at December 31, 2009, under foreign currency purchase and sale forward contracts of $19 million and $74 million, respectively, were not designated for hedge accounting.
The derivative fair values and related unrealized gains and losses at December 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009, were not material.
There were no material transfers of financial instruments between the three levels of fair value hierarchy during the year ended December 31, 2010.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Cash Surrender Value of Life Insurance Policies - The company maintains whole life insurance policies on a group of executives which are recorded at their cash surrender value as determined by the insurance carrier. Additionally, the company has split-dollar life insurance policies on former officers and executives from acquired businesses which are recorded at the lesser of their cash surrender value or premiums paid. The policies are utilized as a partial funding source for deferred compensation and other non-qualified employee retirement plans. As of December 31, 2010, and 2009, the carrying values associated with these policies of $257 million and $242 million, respectively, were recorded in miscellaneous other assets.
Long-Term Debt - As of December 31, 2010, and 2009, the carrying values of long-term debt were $4.8 billion and $4.3 billion, respectively, and the related estimated fair values were $5.2 billion and $4.8 billion, respectively. The fair value of long-term debt was calculated based on interest rates available for debt with terms and maturities similar to the company’s existing debt arrangements.
The carrying amounts of all other financial instruments not discussed above approximate fair value due to their short-term nature.
14.
NOTES PAYABLE TO BANKS AND LONG-TERM DEBT
Lines of Credit - The company has available uncommitted short-term credit lines in the form of money market facilities with several banks. The amount and conditions for borrowing under these credit lines depend on the availability and terms prevailing in the marketplace. No fees or compensating balances are required for these credit facilities.
Credit Facility - The company has a revolving credit facility in an aggregate principal amount of $2 billion that matures on August 10, 2012. The credit facility permits the company to request additional lending commitments of up to $500 million from the lenders under the agreement or through other eligible lenders under certain circumstances. The agreement provides for swingline loans and letters of credit as sub-facilities for the credit facilities provided for in the agreement. Borrowings under the credit facility bear interest at various rates, including the London Interbank Offered Rate, adjusted based on the company’s credit rating, or an alternate base rate plus an incremental margin. The credit facility also requires a facility fee based on the daily aggregate amount of commitments (whether or not utilized) and the company’s credit rating level, and contains a financial covenant relating to a maximum debt to capitalization ratio, and certain restrictions on additional asset liens. There were no borrowings during 2010 and 2009. There was no balance outstanding under this facility at December 31, 2010, and 2009. As of December 31, 2010, the company was in compliance with all covenants.
Debt Tender Offers - In November 2010, the company made a tender offer for approximately $1.9 billion of debt securities held by its subsidiary Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation and maturing in 2016 to 2036 with interest rates ranging from 6.98 percent to 7.875 percent. Approximately $682 million in aggregate principal amount was purchased for a total price of $919 million (including accrued and unpaid interest on the securities). The company also recorded a pre-tax charge of $229 million principally related to the premiums paid on the debt tendered.
Also in November 2010, the company made a tender offer for $200 million of Gulf Opportunity Zone Industrial Revenue Bonds held by its subsidiary Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. and maturing in 2028 with an interest rate of 4.55 percent. Approximately $178 million in aggregate principal amount was purchased for a total price of $178 million (including accrued and unpaid interest on the securities). The company also recorded a pre-tax charge of $2 million principally related to the write-off of unamortized debt issuance costs.
Debt Issuance - In November 2010, the company issued $500 million of 5-year, $700 million of 10-year, and $300 million of 30-year unsecured senior obligations. Interest on the notes is payable semi-annually in arrears at fixed rates of 1.85 percent, 3.50 percent, and 5.05 percent per annum, and the notes will mature on November 15, 2015, March 15, 2021 and November 15, 2040, respectively. These senior notes are subject to redemption at the company’s discretion at any time prior to maturity in whole or in part at the principal amount plus any make-whole premium and accrued and unpaid interest. The net proceeds from these notes are being
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
used for general corporate purposes including debt repayment, pension plan funding, acquisitions, share repurchases and working capital. A portion of the net proceeds was used to fund the purchase of the debt securities and bonds tendered and accepted for purchase in November 2010 as discussed above. The net proceeds may also be used to repay at maturity the $750 million of 7.125 percent senior notes due February 15, 2011.
In July 2009, the company issued $350 million of 5-year and $500 million of 10-year unsecured senior obligations. Interest on the notes is payable semi-annually in arrears at fixed rates of 3.70 percent and 5.05 percent per annum, and the notes will mature on August 1, 2014, and August 1, 2019, respectively. These senior notes are subject to redemption at the company’s discretion at any time prior to maturity in whole or in part at the principal amount plus any make-whole premium and accrued and unpaid interest. The net proceeds from these notes were used for general corporate purposes including debt repayment, acquisitions, share repurchases, pension plan funding, and working capital. On October 15, 2009, a portion of the net proceeds was used to retire $400 million of 8 percent senior debt that had matured.
Long-term debt consisted of the following:
Indentures underlying long-term debt issued by the company or its subsidiaries contain various restrictions with respect to the issuer, including one or more restrictions relating to limitations on liens, sale-leaseback arrangements, and funded debt of subsidiaries. Maturities of long-term debt as of December 31, 2010, are as follows:
The premium on long-term debt primarily represents non-cash fair market value adjustments resulting from acquisitions, which are amortized over the life of the related debt.
15.
INVESTIGATIONS, CLAIMS AND LITIGATION
U.S. Government Investigations and Claims - Departments and agencies of the U.S. Government have the authority to investigate various transactions and operations of the company, and the results of such investigations may lead to administrative, civil or criminal proceedings, the ultimate outcome of which could be fines, penalties, repayments or compensatory or treble damages. U.S. Government regulations provide that certain findings against
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
a contractor may lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracts or the loss of export privileges for a company or a division or subdivision. Suspension or debarment could have a material adverse effect on the company because of its reliance on government contracts.
In the second quarter of 2007, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a revocation of acceptance under the Deepwater Modernization Program for eight converted 123-foot patrol boats (the vessels) based on alleged “hull buckling and shaft alignment problems” and alleged “nonconforming topside equipment” on the vessels. The company submitted a written response that argued that the revocation of acceptance was improper. The Coast Guard advised Integrated Coast Guard Systems, LLC (ICGS), which was formed by the contractors (Lockheed Martin Corporation and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc.) to perform the Deepwater Modernization Program, that it was seeking approximately $96 million from ICGS as a result of the revocation of acceptance. The majority of the costs associated with the 123-foot conversion effort are associated with the alleged structural deficiencies of the vessels, which were converted under contracts with the company and a subcontractor to the company. In 2008, the Coast Guard advised ICGS that the Coast Guard would support an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice of ICGS and its subcontractors instead of pursuing its $96 million claim independently. The Department of Justice conducted an investigation of ICGS under a sealed False Claims Act complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and decided in early 2009 not to intervene at that time. On February 12, 2009, the District Court unsealed the complaint filed by Michael J. DeKort, a former Lockheed Martin employee, against ICGS, Lockheed Martin Corporation and the company relating to the 123-foot conversion effort. Damages under the False Claims Act are subject to trebling. On October 27, 2010, the District Court entered summary judgment for the company on the hull, mechanical and electrical (“HM&E”) claims brought against the company. On November 10, 2010, DeKort acknowledged that with the dismissal of the HM&E claims, no issues remained against the company for trial and the District Court subsequently vacated the December 1, 2010 trial date. On November 12, 2010, DeKort filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the District Court’s denial of his motion to amend the Fifth Amended Complaint. On November 19, 2010, DeKort filed a second motion for reconsideration regarding the District Court’s order granting summary judgment on the HM&E claims. Based upon the information available to the company to date, the company believes that it has substantive defenses to any potential claims but can give no assurance that the company will prevail in this litigation.
In August 2008, the company disclosed to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice possible violations of federal antitrust laws in connection with the bidding process for certain maintenance contracts at a military installation in California. In February 2009, the company and the Department of Justice signed an agreement admitting the company into the Corporate Leniency Program. As a result of the company’s acceptance into the Program, the company will be exempt from federal criminal prosecution and criminal fines relating to the matters the company reported to the Department of Justice if the company complies with certain conditions, including its continued cooperation with the government’s investigation and its agreement to make restitution if the government was harmed by the violations.
Based upon the available information regarding matters listed above that are subject to U.S. Government investigations, the company believes that the outcome of any such matters would not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Litigation - Various claims and legal proceedings arise in the ordinary course of business and are pending against the company and its properties.
The company is one of several defendants in litigation brought by the Orange County Water District in Orange County Superior Court in California on December 17, 2004, for alleged contribution to volatile organic chemical contamination of the County’s shallow groundwater. The lawsuit includes counts against the defendants for violation of the Orange County Water District Act, the California Super Fund Act, negligence, nuisance, trespass and declaratory relief. Among other things, the lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for the cost of
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
remediation, payment of attorney fees and costs, and punitive damages. The June 2009 trial date was vacated. The litigation has been stayed until the next scheduled status conference, which has been set for May 19, 2011.
On March 27, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California consolidated two Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuits that had been separately filed on September 28, 2006, and January 3, 2007, into In Re Northrop Grumman Corporation ERISA Litigation. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated Amended Complaint on September 15, 2010, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties by the Administrative Committees and the Investment Committees (as well as certain individuals who served on or supported those Committees) for two 401K Plans sponsored by Northrop Grumman Corporation. The company is not a defendant in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs claim that these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties caused the Plans to incur excessive administrative and investment fees and expenses to the detriment of the Plans’ participants. On August 6, 2007, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and the plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s decision on class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 8, 2009, the Ninth Circuit vacated the Order denying class certification and remanded the issue to the District Court for further consideration. As required by the Ninth Circuit’s Order, the case was also reassigned to a different judge. The plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification was rejected on a procedural technicality, and they re-filed on January 14, 2011. The District Court postponed the trial date of April 12, 2011, to an as yet undetermined date pending resolution of the class certification motion as well as summary judgment motions, which are to be filed by May 2, 2011. Based upon the information available to the company to date, the company believes that it has substantive defenses to any potential claims but can give no assurance that the company will prevail in this litigation.
On June 22, 2007, a putative class action was filed against the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan and the Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B and their corresponding administrative committees, styled as Skinner et al. v. Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, etc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The putative class representatives alleged violations of ERISA and breaches of fiduciary duty concerning a 2003 modification to the Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B. The modification relates to the employer funded portion of the pension benefit available during a five-year transition period that ended on June 30, 2008. The plaintiffs dismissed the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, and in 2008 the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of all remaining defendants on all claims. The plaintiffs appealed, and in May 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded the matter back to the District Court for further proceedings, finding that there was ambiguity in a 1998 summary plan description related to the employer-funded component of the pension benefit. After the remand, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class. The parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On January 26, 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plan and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The District Court also denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and struck the trial date of March 23, 2010 as unnecessary given the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for the Plan. Plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s order to the Ninth Circuit.
Based upon the information available, the company believes that the resolution of any of these claims and legal proceedings listed above would not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Hurricane Katrina Insurance Recoveries - The company is pursuing legal action against an insurance provider, Factory Mutual Insurance Company (FM Global), arising out of a disagreement concerning the coverage of certain losses related to Hurricane Katrina (Katrina) (see Note 16). Legal action commenced against FM Global
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
on November 4, 2005, which is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. In August 2007, the District Court issued an order finding that the excess insurance policy provided coverage for the company’s Katrina-related loss. FM Global appealed the District Court’s order and on August 14, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the earlier summary judgment order in favor of the company’s interest, holding that the FM Global excess policy unambiguously excludes damage from the storm surge caused by Katrina under its “Flood” exclusion. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether the California efficient proximate cause doctrine affords the company coverage under the policy even if the Flood exclusion of the policy is unambiguous. On April 2, 2009, the Ninth Circuit denied the company’s Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District Court. On June 10, 2009, the company filed a motion seeking leave of court to file a complaint adding Aon Risk Services, Inc. of Southern California (Aon) as a defendant. On July 1, 2009, FM Global filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a determination that the California efficient proximate cause doctrine is not applicable or that it affords no coverage under the policy. On August 26, 2010, the District Court denied the company’s motion to add Aon as a defendant to the case pending in the District Court, finding that the company has a viable option to bring suit against Aon in state court. Also on August 26, the District Court granted FM Global’s motion for summary judgment based upon California’s doctrine of efficient proximate cause, and denied FM Global’s motion for summary judgment based upon breach of contract, finding that triable issues of fact remained as to whether and to what extent Northrop Grumman sustained wind damage apart from the storm surge. The company believes that it is entitled to full reimbursement of its covered losses under the excess policy. The District Court has scheduled trial on the merits for April 3, 2012. On January 27, 2011, the company filed an action against Aon Insurance Services West, Inc., formerly known as Aon Risk Services, Inc. of Southern California in Superior Court in California alleging breach of contract, professional negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. Based on the current status of the litigation, no assurances can be made as to the ultimate outcome of these matters; however, if the company is successful in either of its claims, the potential impact to the company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows would be favorable.
During 2008, the company received notification from Munich-American Risk Partners (Munich Re), the only remaining insurer within the primary layer of insurance coverage with which a resolution has not been reached, that it will pursue arbitration proceedings against the company related to approximately $19 million owed by Munich Re to Northrop Grumman Risk Management Inc. (NGRMI), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the company, for certain losses related to Katrina. An arbitration was later invoked by Munich Re in the United Kingdom under the reinsurance contract. The company was subsequently notified that Munich Re is seeking reimbursement of approximately $44 million of funds previously advanced to NGRMI for payment of claim losses of which Munich Re provided reinsurance protection to NGRMI pursuant to an executed reinsurance contract, and $6 million of adjustment expenses. The arbitral panel has set a hearing for November 14, 2011. The company believes that NGRMI is entitled to full reimbursement of its covered losses under the reinsurance contract and has substantive defenses to the claim of Munich Re for return of the funds paid to date. If matters are resolved in NGRMI’s favor, then NGRMI would be entitled to the remaining $19 million owed for covered losses and it would have no further obligations to Munich Re. Payments to be made to NGRMI in connection with this matter would be for the benefit of the company and reimbursements to be made to Munich Re would be made by the company, if any.
Subsequent Event - On January 31, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice first informed the company and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. of a False Claims Act complaint that the company believes was filed under seal by a relator in mid-2010 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The redacted copy of the complaint that the company received alleges that through largely unspecified fraudulent means the company obtained federal funds that were restricted by law for the consequences of Katrina, and used those funds to cover costs under certain shipbuilding contracts that were unrelated to Katrina and for which the company was not entitled to recovery under the contracts. The complaint seeks monetary damages of at least $835 million, plus penalties, attorney’s fees and other costs of suit. Damages under the False Claims Act may be trebled upon a finding of liability.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
For several years, the company has pursued recovery under its insurance policies for Katrina related property damage and business interruption losses. One of the insurers involved in those actions has made allegations that overlap significantly with certain of the issues raised in the complaint, including allegations that the company used certain Katrina related funds for losses under the contracts unrelated to the hurricane. The company believes that the insurer’s defenses, including those related to the use of Katrina funding, are without merit.
The company has agreed to cooperate with the government investigation relating to the False Claims Act complaint. The company has been advised that the Department of Justice has not made a decision whether to intervene. Based upon the information available to the company to date, the company believes it has substantive defenses to the allegations in the complaint but can give no assurance that there will be no material adverse impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows from this matter.
16.
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Contract Performance Contingencies - Contract profit margins may include estimates of revenues not contractually agreed to between the customer and the company for matters such as settlements in the process of negotiation, contract changes, claims and requests for equitable adjustment for previously unanticipated contract costs. These estimates are based upon management’s best assessment of the underlying causal events and circumstances, and are included in determining contract profit margins to the extent of expected recovery based on contractual entitlements and the probability of successful negotiation with the customer. As of December 31, 2010, the recognized amounts related to claims and requests for equitable adjustment are not material individually or in the aggregate.
Guarantees of Subsidiary Performance Obligations - From time to time in the ordinary course of business, the company guarantees performance obligations of its subsidiaries under certain contracts. In addition, the company’s subsidiaries may enter into joint ventures, teaming and other business arrangements (collectively, Business Arrangements) to support the company’s products and services in domestic and international markets. The company generally strives to limit its exposure under these arrangements to its subsidiary’s investment in the Business Arrangements, or to the extent of such subsidiary’s obligations under the applicable contract. In some cases, however, the company may be required to guarantee performance by the Business Arrangements and, in such cases, the company generally obtains cross-indemnification from the other members of the Business Arrangements. At December 31, 2010, the company is not aware of any existing event of default that would require it to satisfy any of these guarantees.
Environmental Matters - The estimated cost to complete remediation has been accrued where it is probable that the company will incur such costs in the future to address environmental impacts at currently or formerly owned or leased operating facilities, or at sites where it has been named a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) by the Environmental Protection Agency, or similarly designated by other environmental agencies. These accruals do not include any litigation costs related to environmental matters, nor do they include amounts recorded as asset retirement obligations. To assess the potential impact on the company’s consolidated financial statements, management estimates the range of reasonably possible remediation costs that could be incurred by the company, taking into account currently available facts on each site as well as the current state of technology and prior experience in remediating contaminated sites. These estimates are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect changes in facts and technical and legal circumstances. Management estimates that as of December 31, 2010, the range of reasonably possible future costs for environmental remediation sites is $280 million to $674 million, of which $109 million is accrued in other current liabilities and $207 million is accrued in other long-term liabilities. A portion of the environmental remediation costs is expected to be recoverable through overhead charges on government contracts and, accordingly, such amounts are deferred in inventoried costs (current portion) and miscellaneous other assets (non-current portion). Factors that could result in changes to the company’s estimates include: modification of planned remedial actions, increases or decreases in the estimated time required to remediate, changes to the determination of legally responsible parties, discovery of more extensive contamination than anticipated, changes in laws and regulations affecting remediation requirements, and
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
improvements in remediation technology. Should other PRPs not pay their allocable share of remediation costs, the company may have to incur costs in addition to those already estimated and accrued. In addition, there are some potential remediation sites where the costs of remediation cannot be reasonably estimated. Although management cannot predict whether new information gained as projects progress will materially affect the estimated liability accrued, management does not anticipate that future remediation expenditures will have a material adverse effect on the company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Hurricane Impacts - In 2008, a subcontractor’s operations in Texas were severely impacted by Hurricane Ike. The subcontractor produces compartments for two of the LPD amphibious transport dock ships under construction at the Gulf Coast shipyards. In 2009, the company received $25 million of insurance proceeds representing interim payments for property damages on the Hurricane Ike insurance claim. In 2010, the company received $17 million in final settlement of its claim and recorded the insurance proceeds as operating income at the Shipbuilding segment.
In August 2005, the company’s Gulf Coast operations were significantly impacted by Katrina and the company’s shipyards in Louisiana and Mississippi sustained significant windstorm damage from the hurricane. As a result of the storm, the company incurred costs to replace or repair destroyed or damaged assets, suffered losses under its contracts, and incurred substantial costs to clean up and recover its operations. As of the date of the storm, the company had a comprehensive insurance program that provided coverage for, among other things, property damage, business interruption impact on net profitability, and costs associated with clean-up and recovery. The company expects that its remaining claims will be resolved separately with the two remaining insurers, FM Global and Munich Re (see Note 15).
The company has full entitlement to any insurance recoveries related to business interruption impacts on net profitability resulting from these hurricanes. However, because of uncertainties concerning the ultimate determination of recoveries related to business interruption claims, no such amounts are recognized until they are resolved with the insurers. Furthermore, due to the uncertainties with respect to the company’s disagreement with FM Global in relation to the Katrina claim, no receivables have been recognized by the company in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for insurance recoveries from FM Global.
In accordance with U.S. Government cost accounting regulations affecting the majority of the company’s contracts, the cost of insurance premiums for property damage and business interruption coverage, other than “coverage of profit,” is an allowable expense that may be charged to contracts. Because a substantial portion of long-term contracts at the shipyards are flexibly-priced, the government customer would benefit from a portion of insurance recoveries in excess of the net book value of damaged assets. When such insurance recoveries occur, the company is obligated to provide the benefit of a portion of these amounts to the government. In recent discussions, the U.S. Navy has expressed its intention to challenge the allowability of certain post-Katrina depreciation costs charged or expected to be charged on contracts under construction in the Gulf Coast shipyards. It is premature to estimate the amount, if any, that the U.S. Navy will ultimately challenge. The company believes all of the replacement costs should be recoverable under its insurance coverage and the amounts that may be challenged are included in the insurance claim. However, if the company is unsuccessful in its insurance recovery, the company believes there are specific rules in the CAS and FAR that should still render the depreciation on those assets allowable and recoverable through its contracts with the U.S. Navy as these replacement costs provide benefit to the government. The company believes that its depreciation practices are in conformity with the FAR, and that, if the U.S. Navy were to challenge the allowability of such costs, the company would be able to successfully resolve this matter with no material adverse impact to the company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.
Shipbuilding Quality Issues - In conjunction with a second quarter 2009 review of design, engineering and production processes at Shipbuilding undertaken as a result of leaks discovered in the USS San Antonio’s (LPD 17) lube oil system, the company became aware of quality issues relating to certain pipe welds on ships under production in the Gulf Coast as well as those that had previously been delivered. Since that discovery, the
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
company has been working with its customer to determine the nature and extent of the pipe weld issue and its possible impact on related shipboard systems. This effort has resulted in the preparation of a technical analysis of the problem, additional inspections on the ships, a rework plan for ships previously delivered and in various stages of production, and modifications to the work plans for ships being placed into production, all of which has been done with the knowledge and support of the U.S. Navy. Incremental costs associated with the anticipated resolution of these matters, and determined to be Shipbuilding’s responsibility, have been reflected in the financial performance analysis and contract booking rates beginning with the second quarter of 2009.
In the fourth quarter of 2009, certain bearing wear and debris were found in the lubrication system of the main propulsion diesel engines (MPDE) installed on LPD 21. Shipbuilding is participating with the U.S. Navy and other industry participants involved with the MPDEs in a review panel established by the U.S. Navy to examine the MPDE lubrication system’s design, construction, operation and maintenance for the LPD 17 class of ships. The team is focusing on identification and understanding of the root causes of the MPDE diesel bearing wear and debris in the lubrication system and the potential future impacts on maintenance costs. To date the review has identified several potential system improvements for increasing the system reliability. Certain changes are being implemented on ships under construction at this time and the U.S. Navy is implementing some changes on in-service ships in the class at the earliest opportunity. The U.S. Navy has requested a special MPDE flush procedure be used on LPDs 22 through 25 under construction at the Gulf Coast shipyards. The company has informed the U.S. Navy of its position that should the U.S. Navy direct use of this new flush procedure, the company believes such direction would be a change to the contracts for all LPDs under construction, and that such a change would entitle the company to an equitable adjustment to cover the cost and schedule impacts. However, the company can give no assurance that the U.S. Navy will agree that any such direction would constitute a contract change.
In July 2010, the Navy released its report documenting the results of a Judge Advocate General’s manual (JAGMAN) investigation of the failure of MPDE bearings on LPD 17 subsequent to the Navy’s Planned Maintenance Availability (PMA), which was completed in October 2009. During sea trials following the completion of the Navy conducted PMA, one of the ship’s MPDEs suffered a casualty as the result of a bearing failure. The JAGMAN investigation determined that the bearing failure could be attributed to a number of possible factors, including deficiencies in the acquisition process, maintenance, training, and execution of shipboard programs, as well as debris from the construction process. Shipbuilding’s technical personnel reviewed the JAGMAN report and provided feedback to the Navy on the report, recommending that the company and the Navy perform a comprehensive review of the LPD 17 Class propulsion system design and its associated operation and maintenance procedure in order to enhance reliability. Discussions between the company and the Navy on this recommendation are ongoing.
The company and the U.S. Navy continue to work in partnership to investigate and identify any additional corrective actions to address quality issues associated with ships manufactured in the company’s Gulf Coast shipyards, and the company will implement appropriate corrective actions. The company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of the matters described above will have a material adverse effect upon its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
The company has also encountered various quality issues on its aircraft carrier construction and overhaul programs and its Virginia-class submarine construction program at its Newport News shipyards. These primarily involve matters related to filler metal used in pipe welds identified in 2007, and in 2009, issues associated with non-nuclear weld inspection and the installation of weapons handling equipment on certain submarines, and certain purchased material quality issues. The company does not believe that resolution of these issues will have a material adverse effect upon its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Financial Arrangements - In the ordinary course of business, the company uses standby letters of credit and guarantees issued by commercial banks and surety bonds issued principally by insurance companies to guarantee the performance on certain contracts and to support the company’s self-insured workers’ compensation plans. At
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
December 31, 2010, there were $303 million of stand-by letters of credit, $192 million of bank guarantees, and $446 million of surety bonds outstanding.
The company has also guaranteed the remaining $22 million of bonds outstanding from the Gulf Opportunity Zone Industrial Revenue Development Bonds issued by the Mississippi Business Finance Corporation in December 2006. Under the guaranty, the company guaranteed the repayment of all payments due under the trust indenture and loan agreement. In addition, a subsidiary of the company has guaranteed Shipbuilding’s outstanding $84 million Economic Development Revenue Bonds (Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. Project), Taxable Series 1999A.
Indemnifications - The company has retained certain warranty, environmental, income tax, and other potential liabilities in connection with certain of its divestitures. The settlement of these liabilities is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
U.S. Government Claims - From time to time, customers advise the company of claims and penalties concerning certain potential disallowed costs. When such findings are presented, the company and the U.S. Government representatives engage in discussions to enable the company to evaluate the merits of these claims as well as to assess the amounts being claimed. Where appropriate, provisions are made to reflect the company’s expected exposure to the matters raised by the U.S. Government representatives and such provisions are reviewed on a quarterly basis for sufficiency based on the most recent information available. The company believes that the outcome of any such matters would not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Operating Leases - Rental expense for operating leases, excluding discontinued operations, was $492 million in 2010, $549 million in 2009, and $567 million in 2008. These amounts are net of immaterial amounts of sublease rental income. Minimum rental commitments under long-term noncancellable operating leases as of December 31, 2010, total approximately $1.5 billion, which are payable as follows: 2011 - $367 million; 2012 - $289 million; 2013 - $210 million; 2014 - $181 million; 2015 - $149 million and thereafter - $318 million.
Related Party Transactions - For all periods presented, the company had no material related party transactions.
17.
RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Plan Descriptions
Defined Benefit Pension Plans - The company sponsors several defined benefit pension plans in the U.S. covering the majority of its employees. Pension benefits for most employees are based on the employee’s years of service and compensation. It is the policy of the company to fund at least the minimum amount required for all qualified plans, using actuarial cost methods and assumptions acceptable under U.S. Government regulations, by making payments into benefit trusts separate from the company. The pension benefit for most employees is based upon criteria whereby employees earn age and service points over their employment period.
Defined Contribution Plans - The company also sponsors 401(k) defined contribution plans in which most employees are eligible to participate, as well as certain bargaining unit employees. Company contributions for most plans are based on a cash matching of employee contributions up to 4 percent of compensation. Certain hourly employees are covered under a target benefit plan. The company also participates in a multiemployer plan for certain of the company’s union employees. In addition to the 401(k) defined contribution benefit, non-represented employees hired after June 30, 2008, are eligible to participate in a defined contribution program in lieu of a defined benefit pension plan. The company’s contributions to these defined contribution plans for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, were $338 million, $341 million, and $311 million, respectively.
Non-U.S. Benefit Plans - The company sponsors several benefit plans for non-U.S. employees. These plans are designed to provide benefits appropriate to local practice and in accordance with local regulations. Some of these plans are funded using benefit trusts that are separate from the company.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Medical and Life Benefits - The company provides a portion of the costs for certain health care and life insurance benefits for a substantial number of its active and retired employees. Covered employees achieve eligibility to participate in these contributory plans upon retirement from active service if they meet specified age and years of service requirements. Qualifying dependents are also eligible for medical coverage. Approximately 64 percent of the company’s current retirees participate in the medical plans. The company reserves the right to amend or terminate the plans at any time. In November 2006, the company adopted plan amendments and communicated to plan participants that it would cap the amount of its contributions to substantially all of its remaining post retirement medical and life benefit plans that were previously not subject to limits on the company’s contributions.
In addition to a medical inflation cost-sharing feature, the plans also have provisions for deductibles, co-payments, coinsurance percentages, out-of-pocket limits, conformance to a schedule of reasonable fees, the use of managed care providers, and maintenance of benefits with other plans. The plans also provide for a Medicare carve-out. Subsequent to January 1, 2005 (or earlier at some segments), newly hired employees are not eligible for post employment medical and life benefits.
The effect of the Medicare prescription drug subsidy from the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 to reduce the company’s net periodic post-retirement benefit cost and accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation for the periods presented was not material. Pursuant to the new healthcare law described below, the tax benefits related to Medicare Part D subsidies will expire on December 31, 2012.
New Health Care Legislation - The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act became law during the first quarter of 2010. The provisions of these new laws will affect the company’s costs of providing health care benefits to its employees beginning in 2011. The company participated in the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program and continues to assess the extent to which the provisions of the new laws will affect its future health care and related employee benefit plan costs.
Summary Plan Results
The cost to the company of its retirement benefit plans in each of the three years ended December 31 is shown in the following table:
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
The table below summarizes the components of changes in unamortized benefit plan costs for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008:
Unamortized benefit plan costs consist primarily of accumulated net after-tax actuarial losses totaling $2,771 million and $3,082 million as of December 31, 2010, and 2009, respectively. Net actuarial gains or losses are re-determined annually and principally arise from gains or losses on plan assets due to variations in the fair market value of the underlying assets and changes in the benefit obligation due to changes in actuarial assumptions. Net actuarial gains or losses are amortized to expense in future periods when they exceed ten percent of the greater of plan assets or projected benefit obligations by benefit plan. The excess of gains or losses over the ten percent threshold are subject to amortization over the average future service period of employees of approximately ten years.
The following tables set forth the funded status and amounts recognized in the consolidated statements of financial position for the company’s defined benefit pension and retiree health care and life insurance benefit
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
plans. Pension benefits data include the qualified plans as well as 14 domestic unfunded non-qualified plans for benefits provided to directors, officers, and certain employees. During 2010, nine such plans were merged. The company uses a December 31 measurement date for all of its plans.
The following table shows those amounts expected to be recognized in net periodic benefit cost in 2011:
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
The accumulated benefit obligation for all defined benefit pension plans was $23.6 billion and $22.1 billion at December 31, 2010, and 2009, respectively.
Amounts for pension plans with accumulated benefit obligations in excess of fair value of plan assets are as follows:
Plan Assumptions
On a weighted-average basis, the following assumptions were used to determine the benefit obligations and the net periodic benefit cost:
The discount rate is generally based on the yield on high-quality corporate fixed-income investments. At the end of each year, the discount rate is primarily determined using the results of bond yield curve models based on a portfolio of high quality bonds matching the notional cash inflows with the expected benefit payments for each significant benefit plan.
The assumptions used for pension benefits are consistent with those used for retiree medical and life insurance benefits. The long-term rate of return on plan assets used for the medical and life benefits are reduced to allow for the impact of tax on expected returns as, unlike the pension trust, the earnings of certain Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) trusts are taxable.
Through consultation with investment advisors, expected long-term returns for each of the plans’ strategic asset classes were developed. Several factors were considered, including survey of investment managers’ expectations, current market data such as yields/price-earnings ratios, and historical market returns over long periods. Using policy target allocation percentages and the asset class expected returns, a weighted-average expected return was calculated.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
A one-percentage-point change in the initial through the ultimate health care cost trend rates would have the following effects:
Plan Assets and Investment Policy
Plan assets are invested in various asset classes that are expected to produce a sufficient level of diversification and investment return over the long term. The investment goal is to exceed the assumed actuarial rate of return over the long term within reasonable and prudent levels of risk. Liability studies are conducted on a regular basis to provide guidance in setting investment goals with an objective to balance risk. Risk targets are established and monitored against acceptable ranges.
All investment policies and procedures are designed to ensure that the plans’ investments are in compliance with ERISA. Guidelines are established defining permitted investments within each asset class. Derivatives are used for transitioning assets, asset class rebalancing, managing currency risk, and for management of fixed income and alternative investments. For the majority of the plans’ assets, the investment policies require that the asset allocation be maintained within the following ranges as of December 31, 2010:
The table below provides the fair values of the company’s pension and VEBA trust plan assets at December 31, 2010, and 2009, by asset category. The table also identifies the level of inputs used to determine the fair value of assets in each category (see Note 1 for definition of levels). The significant amount of Level 2 investments in the table results from including in this category investments in pooled funds that contain investments with values
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
based on quoted market prices, but for which the funds are not valued on a quoted market basis, and fixed income securities that are valued using model based pricing services.
(1)
Cash & cash equivalents are predominantly held in money market funds
(2)
Other includes futures, swaps, options, swaptions and insurance contracts at year end.
The changes in the fair value of the pension and VEBA plan trust assets measured using significant unobservable inputs during 2010 and 2009, are as follows:
Generally, investments are valued based on information in financial publications of general circulation, statistical and valuation services, records of security exchanges, appraisal by qualified persons, transactions and bona fide offers. Domestic and international equities consist primarily of common stocks and institutional common trust funds. Investments in common and preferred shares are valued at the last reported sales price of the stock on the
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
last business day of the reporting period. Units in common trust funds and hedge funds are valued based on the redemption price of units owned by the trusts at year-end. Fair value for real estate and private equity partnerships is primarily based on valuation methodologies that include third party appraisals, comparable transactions, discounted cash flow valuation models, and public market data.
Non-government fixed income securities are invested across various industry sectors and credit quality ratings. Generally, investment guidelines are written to limit securities, for example, to no more than 5 percent of each trust account, and to exclude the purchase of securities issued by the company. The number of real estate and private equity partnerships is 167 and the unfunded commitments are $1.2 billion and $1.1 billion as of December 31, 2010, and 2009, respectively. For alternative investments that cannot be redeemed, such as limited partnerships, the typical investment term is ten years. For alternative investments that permit redemptions, such redemptions are generally made quarterly and require a 90-day notice. The company is generally unable to determine the final redemption amount until the request is processed by the investment fund and therefore categorizes such alternative investments as Level 3 assets.
At December 31, 2010, and 2009, the defined benefit pension and VEBA trusts did not hold any Northrop Grumman common stock.
Benefit Payments
The following table reflects estimated future benefit payments, based upon the same assumptions used to measure the benefit obligation, and includes expected future employee service, as of December 31, 2010:
In 2011, the company expects to contribute the required minimum funding level of approximately $62 million to its pension plans and approximately $160 million to its other post-retirement benefit plans and also expects to make additional voluntary pension contributions of approximately $500 million. During 2010 and 2009, the company made voluntary pension contributions of $830 million and $800 million, respectively.
18.
STOCK COMPENSATION PLANS
Plan Descriptions
At December 31, 2010, Northrop Grumman had stock-based compensation awards outstanding under the following plans: the 2001 Long-Term Incentive Stock Plan (2001 LTISP) applicable to employees, and the 1993 Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors (1993 SPND) and 1995 Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors (1995 SPND) as amended. All of these plans were approved by the company’s shareholders. The company has historically issued new shares to satisfy award grants.
Employee Plans - The 2001 LTISP permits grants to key employees of three general types of stock incentive awards: stock options, stock appreciation rights (SARs), and stock awards. Each stock option grant is made with an exercise price either at the closing price of the stock on the date of grant (market options) or at a premium over the closing price of the stock on the date of grant (premium options). Outstanding stock options granted prior to 2008 generally vest in 25 percent increments over four years from the grant date, and grants outstanding expire ten years after the grant date. Stock options granted 2008 and later vest in 33 percent increments over three years from the grant date and grants outstanding expire seven years after the grant date. No SARs have
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
been granted under the LTISP. Stock awards, in the form of restricted performance stock rights and restricted stock rights, are granted to key employees without payment to the company.
Recipients of restricted performance stock rights earn shares of stock, based on financial metrics determined by the board of directors in accordance with the plan. For grants prior to 2007, if the objectives have not been met at the end of the applicable performance period, up to 100 percent of the original grant for the eight highest compensated employees and up to 70 percent of the original grant for all other recipients will be forfeited. If the financial metrics are met or exceeded during the performance period, all recipients can earn up to 150 percent of the original grant. Beginning in 2007, all members of the Corporate Policy Council (consisting of the CEO and certain other leadership positions) could forfeit up to 100 percent of the original grant, and all recipients could earn up to 200 percent of the original grant. Restricted stock rights issued under either plan generally vest after three years. Termination of employment can result in forfeiture of some or all of the benefits extended. Of the 50 million shares approved for issuance under the 2001 LTISP, approximately 9.4 million shares were available for future grants as of December 31, 2010.
Non-Employee Plans - Under the 1993 SPND, at least half of the retainer fee earned by each director must be deferred into a stock unit account (Automatic Stock Units). Effective January 1, 2010, the amended SPND provides that the Automatic Stock Units be awarded at the conclusion of board service or as specified by the director. If a director has less than 5 years of service, the stock units are awarded at the conclusion of board service. In addition, directors may defer payment of all or part of the remaining retainer fee and other annual committee fees, which are placed in a stock unit account (Elective Stock Units). The Elective Stock Units are awarded at the conclusion of board service or as specified by the director, regardless of years of service. Directors are credited with dividend equivalents in connection with the stock units until the shares are awarded. The 1995 SPND provided for annual stock option grants, and effective June 1, 2005, no new grants have been issued from this plan. The 1995 SPND was amended in May 2007 to permit payment of the stock unit portion of the retainer fee described above. Each grant of stock options under the 1995 SPND was made at the closing market price on the date of the grant, was immediately exercisable, and expires ten years after the grant date. At December 31, 2010, approximately 93 thousand shares were available for future grants under the 1995 SPND.
Compensation Expense
Total stock-based compensation for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, was $134 million, $101 million, and $111 million, respectively, of which $27 million, $20 million, and $15 million related to stock options and $107 million, $81 million, and $96 million, related to stock awards, respectively. Tax benefits recognized in the consolidated statements of operations for stock-based compensation during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, were $53 million, $40 million, and $44 million, respectively. In addition, the company realized tax benefits of $17 million from the exercise of stock options and $34 million from the issuance of stock awards in 2010.
At December 31, 2010, there was $172 million of unrecognized compensation expense related to unvested awards granted under the company’s stock-based compensation plans, of which $19 million relates to stock options and $153 million relates to stock awards. These amounts are expected to be charged to expense over a weighted-average period of 1.4 years.
Stock Options
The fair value of each of the company’s stock option awards is estimated on the date of grant using a Black-Scholes option-pricing model that uses the assumptions noted in the table below. The fair value of the company’s stock option awards is expensed on a straight-line basis over the vesting period of the options, which is generally three to four years. Expected volatility is based on an average of (1) historical volatility of the company’s stock and (2) implied volatility from traded options on the company’s stock. The risk-free rate for periods within the contractual life of the stock option award is based on the yield curve of a zero-coupon U.S. Treasury bond on the date the award is granted with a maturity equal to the expected term of the award. The company uses historical data to estimate future forfeitures. The expected term of awards granted is derived from historical
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
experience under the company’s stock-based compensation plans and represents the period of time that awards granted are expected to be outstanding.
The significant weighted-average assumptions relating to the valuation of the company’s stock options for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, was as follows:
The company generally granted stock options exclusively to executives, and the expected term of six years is based on these employees’ exercise behavior. In 2009, the company granted options to non-executives and assigned an expected term of five years for valuing these options. The company believes that this stratification of expected terms best represents future expected exercise behavior between the two employee groups.
The weighted-average grant date fair value of stock options granted during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, was $11, $7, and $15, per share, respectively.
Stock option activity for the year ended December 31, 2010, was as follows:
The total intrinsic value of options exercised during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, was $42 million, $11 million, and $66 million, respectively. Intrinsic value is measured using the fair market value at the date of exercise (for options exercised) or at December 31, 2010 (for outstanding options), less the applicable exercise price.
Stock Awards
The fair value of stock awards is determined based on the closing market price of the company’s common stock on the grant date. Compensation expense for stock awards is measured at the grant date based on fair value and recognized over the vesting period, generally three years. For purposes of measuring compensation expense, the number of shares ultimately expected to vest is estimated at each reporting date based on management’s expectations regarding the relevant performance criteria.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Stock award activity for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, is presented in the table below. Vested awards include stock awards fully vested during the year and net adjustments to reflect the final performance measure for issued shares.
The company issued 1.3 million, 2.5 million, and 2.9 million shares to employees in settlement of prior year stock awards that were fully vested, which had total fair values at issuance of $76 million, $111 million, and $233 million and grant date fair values of $91 million, $161 million, and $155 million during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively. The differences between the fair values at issuance and the grant date fair values reflect the effects of the performance adjustments and changes in the fair market value of the company’s common stock.
In 2011, the company expects to issue to employees 1.3 million shares of common stock that vested as of December 31, 2010, with a grant date fair value of $101 million.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
19.
UNAUDITED SELECTED QUARTERLY DATA
Unaudited quarterly financial results are set forth in the following tables. It is the company’s long-standing practice to establish actual interim closing dates using a “fiscal” calendar, which requires the businesses to close their books on a Friday, in order to normalize the potentially disruptive effects of quarterly close on business processes. The effects of this practice only exist within a reporting year. The company’s common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (trading symbol NOC).
Significant 2010 Fourth Quarter Events - In the fourth quarter of 2010, the company recorded a pre-tax charge of $231 million related to the redemption of outstanding debt and made a $440 million contribution to the company’s pension plans.
Significant 2009 Fourth Quarter Event - In the fourth quarter of 2009, the company sold ASD for $1.65 billion in cash.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION

ITEM 9 - CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS
Item 9.
Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
No information is required in response to this item.

ITEM 9A - CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Item 9A.
Controls and Procedures
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Our principal executive officer (Chief Executive Officer and President) and principal financial officer (Corporate Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) have evaluated the company’s disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2010, and have concluded that these controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 USC § 78a et seq) is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms. These disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports that we file or submit is accumulated and communicated to management, including the principal executive officer and the principal financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
During the fourth quarter of 2010, no change occurred in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that materially affected, or is likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 9B - OTHER INFORMATION
Item 9B.
Other Information
No information is required in response to this item.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
The management of Northrop Grumman Corporation (the company) prepared and is responsible for the consolidated financial statements and all related financial information contained in this Annual Report. This responsibility includes establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting. The company’s internal control over financial reporting was designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
To comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the company designed and implemented a structured and comprehensive assessment process to evaluate its internal control over financial reporting across the enterprise. The assessment of the effectiveness of the company’s internal control over financial reporting was based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Because of its inherent limitations, a system of internal control over financial reporting can provide only reasonable assurance and may not prevent or detect misstatements. Management regularly monitors its internal control over financial reporting, and actions are taken to correct any deficiencies as they are identified. Based on its assessment, management has concluded that the company’s internal control over financial reporting is effective as of December 31, 2010.
Deloitte & Touche LLP issued an attestation report dated February 8, 2011, concerning the company’s internal control over financial reporting, which is contained in this Annual Report. The company’s consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010, have been audited by the independent registered public accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche LLP in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).
/s/
Wesley G. Bush
Chief Executive Officer and President
/s/
James F. Palmer
Corporate Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
February 8, 2011
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Los Angeles, California
We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of Northrop Grumman Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the company’s principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the company’s board of directors, management, and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or improper management override of controls, material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, based on the criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010 of the Company and our report dated February 8, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.
/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Los Angeles, California
February 8, 2011
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
PART III

ITEM 10 - DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Item 10.
Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance
Directors
Information about our Directors will be incorporated herein by reference to the Proxy Statement for the 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of our fiscal year.
Executive Officers
Our executive officers as of February 8, 2011 are listed below, along with their ages on that date, positions and offices with the company, and principal occupations and employment during the past five years.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Audit Committee Financial Expert
The information as to the Audit Committee and the Audit Committee Financial Expert will be incorporated herein by reference to the Proxy Statement for the 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed within 120 days after the end of the company’s fiscal year.
Code of Ethics
We have adopted Standards of Business Conduct for all of our employees, including the principal executive officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer. The Standards of Business Conduct can be found on our internet web site at www.northropgrumman.com under “Investor Relations - Corporate
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
Governance - Overview.” A copy of the Standards of Business Conduct is available to any stockholder who requests it by writing to: Northrop Grumman Corporation, c/o Office of the Secretary, 1840 Century Park East, Los Angeles, CA 90067.
The web site and information contained on it or incorporated in it are not intended to be incorporated in this report on Form 10-K or other filings with the Securities Exchange Commission.
Other Disclosures
Other disclosures required by this Item will be incorporated herein by reference to the Proxy Statement for the 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed within 120 days after the end of the company’s fiscal year.

ITEM 11 - EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Item 11.
Executive Compensation
Information concerning Executive Compensation, including information concerning Compensation Committed Interlocks and Insider Participation and Compensation Committee Report, will be incorporated herein by reference to the Proxy Statement for the 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed within 120 days after the end of the company’s fiscal year.

ITEM 12 - SECURITY OWNERSHIP
Item 12.
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
The information as to Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans and Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters will be incorporated herein by reference to the Proxy Statement for the 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed within 120 days after the end of the company’s fiscal year.

ITEM 13 - CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS
Item 13.
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
The information as to Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence will be incorporated herein by reference to the Proxy Statement for the 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed within 120 days after the end of the company’s fiscal year.

ITEM 14 - PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
Item 14.
Principal Accountant Fees and Services
The information as to principal accountant fees and services will be incorporated herein by reference to the Proxy Statement for the 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be filed within 120 days after the end of the company’s fiscal year.
PART IV

ITEM 15 - EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
Item 15.
Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
(a) 1. Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Operations
Consolidated Statements of Financial Position
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
2. Financial Statement Schedules
All schedules have been omitted because they are not applicable, not required, or the information has been otherwise supplied in the financial statements or notes to the financial statements.
3.
Exhibits
3(a)
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Northrop Grumman Corporation dated May 19, 2010 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Form 8-K dated May 19, 2010, and filed May 25, 2010)
*3(b)
Bylaws of Northrop Grumman Corporation, as amended May 19, 2010
4(a)
Registration Rights Agreement dated as of January 23, 2001, by and among Northrop Grumman Corporation (now Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation), NNG, Inc. (now Northrop Grumman Corporation) and Unitrin, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit(d)(6) to Amendment No. 4 to Schedule TO filed January 31, 2001)
4(b)
Indenture dated as of October 15, 1994, between Northrop Grumman Corporation (now Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation) and The Chase Manhattan Bank (National Association), Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Form 8-K dated October 20, 1994, and filed October 25, 1994)
4(c)
Form of Officers’ Certificate (without exhibits) establishing the terms of Northrop Grumman Corporation’s (now Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation’s) 7.75 percent Debentures due 2016 and 7.875 percent Debentures due 2026 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4-3 to Form S-4 Registration Statement No. 333-02653 filed April 19, 1996)
4(d)
Form of Northrop Grumman Corporation’s (now Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation’s) 7.75 percent Debentures due 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4-5 to Form S-4 Registration Statement No. 333-02653 filed April 19, 1996)
4(e)
Form of Northrop Grumman Corporation’s (now Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation’s) 7.875 percent Debentures due 2026 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4-6 to Form S-4 Registration Statement No. 333-02653 filed April 19, 1996)
4(f)
Form of Officers’ Certificate establishing the terms of Northrop Grumman Corporation’s (now Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation’s) 7.125 percent Notes due 2011 and 7.75 percent Debentures due 2031 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to Form 8-K dated April 3, 2001, and filed April 17, 2001)
4(g)
Indenture dated as of April 13, 1998, between Litton Industries, Inc. (predecessor-in-interest to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation) and The Bank of New York, as trustee, under which its 6.75 percent Senior Debentures due 2018 were issued (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Form 10-Q of Litton Industries, Inc. for the quarter ended April 30, 1998, filed June 15, 1998)
4(h)
Supplemental Indenture with respect to Indenture dated April 13, 1998, dated as of April 3, 2001, among Litton Industries, Inc. (predecessor-in-interest to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation), Northrop Grumman Corporation, Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation and The Bank of New York, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.5 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2001, filed May 10, 2001)
4(i)
Supplemental Indenture with respect to Indenture dated April 13, 1998, dated as of December 20, 2002, among Litton Industries, Inc. (predecessor-in-interest to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation), Northrop Grumman Corporation, Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation and The Bank of New York, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(q) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, filed March 24, 2003)
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
4(j)
Senior Indenture dated as of December 15, 1991, between Litton Industries, Inc. (predecessor-in-interest to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation) and The Bank of New York, as trustee, under which its 7.75 percent and 6.98 percent debentures due 2026 and 2036 were issued, and specimens of such debentures (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Form 10-Q of Litton Industries, Inc. for the quarter ended April 30, 1996, filed June 11, 1996)
4(k)
Supplemental Indenture with respect to Indenture dated December 15, 1991, dated as of April 3, 2001, among Litton Industries, Inc. (predecessor-in-interest to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation), Northrop Grumman Corporation, Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation and The Bank of New York, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.7 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2001, filed May 10, 2001)
4(l)
Supplemental Indenture with respect to Indenture dated December 15, 1991, dated as of December 20, 2002, among Litton Industries, Inc. (predecessor-in-interest to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation), Northrop Grumman Corporation, Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation and The Bank of New York, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(t) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, filed March 24, 2003)
4(m)
Indenture between TRW Inc. (predecessor-in-interest to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation) and Mellon Bank, N.A., as trustee, dated as of May 1, 1986 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2 to the Form 8-A Registration Statement of TRW Inc. dated July 3, 1986)
4(n)
First Supplemental Indenture between TRW Inc. (predecessor-in-interest to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation) and Mellon Bank, N.A., as trustee, dated as of August 24, 1989 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b) to Form S-3 Registration Statement No. 33-30350 of TRW Inc.)
4(o)
Fifth Supplemental Indenture between TRW Inc. (predecessor-in-interest to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation) and The Chase Manhattan Bank, as successor trustee, dated as of June 2, 1999 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(f) to Form S-4 Registration Statement No. 333-83227 of TRW Inc. filed July 20, 1999)
4(p)
Ninth Supplemental Indenture dated as of December 31, 2009 among Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corp. (predecessor--in-interest to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation); The Bank of New York Mellon, as successor trustee; Northrop Grumman Corporation; and Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(p) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed February 9, 2010)
4(q)
Indenture dated as of November 21, 2001, between Northrop Grumman Corporation and JPMorgan Chase Bank, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Form 8-K dated and filed November 21, 2001)
4(r)
First Supplemental Indenture dated as of July 30, 2009, between Northrop Grumman Corporation and The Bank of New York Mellon, as successor trustee, to Indenture dated as of November 21, 2001 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(a) to Form 8-K dated July 23, 2009, and filed July 30, 2009)
4(s)
Form of Northrop Grumman Corporation’s 3.70 percent Senior Note due 2014 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b) to Form 8-K dated July 23, 2009, and filed July 30, 2009)
4(t)
Form of Northrop Grumman Corporation’s 5.05 percent Senior Note due 2019 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c) to Form 8-K dated July 23, 2009, and filed July 30, 2009)
4(u)
Second Supplemental Indenture dated as of November 8, 2010, between Northrop Grumman Corporation and The Bank of New York Mellon, as successor trustee, to Indenture dated as of November 21, 2001 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(a) to Form 8-K dated and filed November 8, 2010)
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
4(v)
Form of Northrop Grumman Corporation’s 1.850% Senior Note due 2015 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b) to Form 8-K dated and filed November 8, 2010)
4(w)
Form of Northrop Grumman Corporation’s 3.500% Senior Note due 2021 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c) to Form 8-K dated and filed November 8, 2010)
4(x)
Form of Northrop Grumman Corporation’s 5.050% Senior Note due 2024 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(d) to Form 8-K dated and filed November 8, 2010)
10(a)
Form of Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of August 10, 2007, among Northrop Grumman Corporation, as Borrower; Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation and Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corp. (predecessor-in-interest to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation), as Guarantors; the Lenders party thereto; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Payment Agent, an Issuing Bank, Swingline Lender and Administrative Agent; Credit Suisse, as Administrative Agent; Citicorp USA, Inc., as Syndication Agent; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, as Documentation Agents; and BNP Paribas as Co-Documentation Agent (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Form 8-K dated August 10, 2007, and filed August 13, 2007)
10(b)
Form of Guarantee dated as of April 3, 2001, by Northrop Grumman Corporation of the indenture indebtedness issued by Litton Industries, Inc. (predecessor-in-interest to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to Form 8-K dated April 3, 2001, and filed April 17, 2001)
10(c)
Form of Guarantee dated as of April 3, 2001, by Northrop Grumman Corporation of Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation indenture indebtedness (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 to Form 8-K dated April 3, 2001, and filed April 17, 2001)
10(d)
Form of Guarantee dated as of March 27, 2003, by Northrop Grumman Corporation, as Guarantor, in favor of JP Morgan Chase Bank, as trustee, of certain debt securities issued by the former Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corp. (predecessor-in-interest to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, filed May 14, 2003)
+10(e)
Consultant Contract dated June 28, 2010 between Ronald D. Sugar and Northrop Grumman Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, filed July 29, 2010)
+10(f)
Northrop Grumman Corporation 1993 Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors (as Amended and Restated January 1, 2010) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, filed July 23, 2009)
+10(g)
Northrop Grumman Corporation 1995 Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors, as Amended as of May 16, 2007 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit A to the Company’s Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A for the 2007 Meeting of Shareholders filed April 12, 2007)
+10(h)
Northrop Grumman 2001 Long-Term Incentive Stock Plan (As amended through December 19, 2007) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit A to the Company’s Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A for the 2008 Annual Meeting of Shareholders filed April 21, 2008)
(i) Form of Notice of Non-Qualified Grant of Stock Options and Option Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to Form S-4 Registration Statement No. 333-83672 filed March 4, 2002)
(ii) Form of Agreement for 2005 Stock Options (officer) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(d)(v) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, filed March 4, 2005)
(iii) Form of letter from Northrop Grumman Corporation regarding Stock Option Retirement Enhancement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Form 8-K dated March 14, 2005 and filed March 15, 2005)
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
(iv) Form of Agreement for 2006 Stock Options (officer) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(d)(viii) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, filed February 17, 2006)
(v) Terms and Conditions Applicable to 2006 CPC Incentive Restricted Stock Rights Agreement of Wesley G. Bush dated May 16, 2006, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(i)(ix) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, filed February 20, 2008)
(vi) Form of Restricted Performance Stock Rights Agreement, applicable to 2007 Restricted Performance Stock Rights, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(i)(xi) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, filed February 20, 2008)
(vii) Form of Agreement for 2007 Stock Options (officers) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(2)(ii) to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, filed April 24, 2007)
(viii) Terms and Conditions Applicable to Special 2007 Restricted Stock Rights Granted to James F. Palmer dated March 12, 2007, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(i)(xiii) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, filed February 20, 2008)
(ix) Form of Agreement for 2008 Stock Options (officer) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(4)(i) to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, filed April 24, 2008)
(x) Form of Agreement for 2008 Restricted Performance Stock Rights (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(4)(ii) to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, filed April 24, 2008)
(xi) Form of Agreement for 2009 Stock Options (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2(i) to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, filed April 22, 2009)
(xii) Form of Agreement for 2009 Restricted Performance Stock Rights (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2(ii) to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, filed April 22, 2009)
(xiii) Form of Agreement for 2010 Restricted Performance Stock Rights (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, filed April 28, 2010)
(xiv) Form of Agreement for 2010 Stock Options (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, filed April 28, 2010)
(xv) Form of Agreement for 2010 Restricted Stock Rights (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, filed April 28, 2010)
*(xvi) Terms and Conditions Applicable to 2010 Restricted Stock Rights Granted to Sheila C. Cheston dated November 11, 2010
+10(i)
Northrop Grumman Supplemental Plan 2 (Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2009) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(i) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed February 9, 2010)
(i) Appendix A: Northrop Supplemental Retirement Income Program for Senior Executives (Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2009) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(i)(i) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed February 9, 2010)
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
(ii) Appendix B: ERISA Supplemental Program 2 (Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2009) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(i)(ii) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed February 9, 2010)
(iii) Appendix F: CPC Supplemental Executive Retirement Program (Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2011) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed October 27, 2010)
(iv) Appendix G: Officers Supplemental Executive Retirement Program (Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2011) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed October 27, 2010)
*(v) Appendix I: Officers Supplemental Executive Retirement Program II (Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2011)
+10(j)
Northrop Grumman ERISA Supplemental Plan (Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2009) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(j) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed February 9, 2010)
+*10(k)
Northrop Grumman Supplementary Retirement Income Plan (formerly TRW Supplementary Retirement Income Plan) (Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2010)
+*10(l)
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems Executive Pension Plan (Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2011)
+10(m)
Northrop Grumman Corporation January 2010 Change in Control Severance Plan (effective as of January 1, 2010) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(p) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed February 9, 2010)
+*10(n)
Confidential Separation Agreement and General Release between James L. Cameron and Northrop Grumman Corporation dated May 10,
+10(o)
Form of Northrop Grumman Corporation January 2010 Special Agreement (relating to severance program for change-in-control) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Form 8-K dated and filed October 8, 2009)
+10(p)
Letter dated September 21, 2010 from Lewis W. Coleman, Chairman of the Board, regarding terms of the relocation arrangement for Wesley G. Bush, Chief Executive Officer and President, in connection with relocation of Company headquarters (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Form 8-K dated and filed September 21, 2010)
+*10(q)
Severance Plan for Elected and Appointed Officers of Northrop Grumman Corporation As amended and restated effective August 1,
+10(r)
Non-Employee Director Compensation Term Sheet, effective January 1, 2010 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Form 8-K dated and filed December 21, 2009)
+10(s)
Non-Employee Director Compensation Term Sheet, effective May 19, 2010 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, filed July 29, 2010)
+10(t)
Form of Indemnification Agreement between Northrop Grumman Corporation and its directors and executive officers (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.39 to Form S-4 Registration Statement No. 333-83672 filed March 4, 2002)
+*10(u)
Northrop Grumman Deferred Compensation Plan (Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2011)
+10(v)
The 2002 Incentive Compensation Plan of Northrop Grumman Corporation, As Amended and Restated effective January 1, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, filed April 22, 2009)
+10(w)
Northrop Grumman 2006 Annual Incentive Plan and Incentive Compensation Plan (for Non-Section 162(m) Officers), as amended and restated effective January 1, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, filed April 22, 2009)
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
+*10(x)
Northrop Grumman Savings Excess Plan (Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2011)
+10(y)
Northrop Grumman Officers Retirement Account Contribution Plan (Effective as of October 1, 2009) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(y) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed February 9, 2010)
+10(z)
Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers (Named Executive Officers) for 2010 (incorporated by reference to Item 5.02(e) of Form 8-K dated February 16, 2010, and filed February 22, 2010)
+10(aa)
Offering letter dated February 1, 2007 from Northrop Grumman Corporation to James F. Palmer relating to position of Corporate Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(3) to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, filed April 24, 2007), as amended by Amendment to Letter Agreement between Northrop Grumman Corporation and James F. Palmer dated December 17, 2008 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Form 8-K dated December 17, 2008 and filed December 19, 2008)
+*10(bb)
Litton Industries, Inc. Restoration Plan 2 (Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2010)
+10(cc)
Litton Industries, Inc. Restoration Plan (Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2009) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(cc) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed February 9, 2010)
+10(dd)
Litton Industries, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (Amended and Restated and Effective as of October 1, 2004 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(ee) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, filed March 4, 2005)
+10(ee)
Northrop Grumman Supplemental Retirement Replacement Plan, as Restated, dated January 1, 2008 between Northrop Grumman Corporation and James F. Palmer (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Form 8-K dated December 17, 2008 and filed December 19, 2008)
+10(ff)
Northrop Grumman Corporation Special Officer Retiree Medical Plan (Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2008) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(2) to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, filed April 24, 2008)
+10(gg)
Executive Life Insurance Policy (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(gg) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, filed March 4, 2005)
+10(hh)
Executive Accidental Death, Dismemberment and Plegia Insurance Policy Terms applicable to Executive Officers dated January 1, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, filed April 22, 2009)
+10(ii)
Executive Long-Term Disability Insurance Policy as amended by Amendment No. 2 dated June 19, 2008 and effective as of October 4, 2007 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(2) to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, filed July 29, 2008)
+10(jj)
Executive Dental Insurance Policy Group Numbers 5134 and 5135 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(m) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995, filed February 22, 1996), as amended by action of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Northrop Grumman Corporation effective July 1, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Item 5.02(e) of Form 8-K dated May 19, 2009 and filed May 26, 2009)
+10(kk)
Group Personal Excess Liability Policy (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(ll) to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, filed March 4, 2005)
+10(ll)
Northrop Grumman Executive Health Plan Matrix effective July 1, 2008 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, filed April 22, 2009), as amended by action of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Northrop Grumman Corporation effective July 1, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Item 5.02(e) of Form 8-K dated May 19, 2009 and filed May 26, 2009)
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
+10(mm)
Letter dated December 16, 2009 from Northrop Grumman Corporation to Wesley G. Bush regarding compensation effective January 1, 2010 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Form 8-K dated December 15, 2009 and filed December 21, 2009)
+10(nn)
Letter agreement dated December 17, 2008 between Northrop Grumman Corporation and Ronald D. Sugar relating to termination of Employment Agreement dated February 19, 2003 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Form 8-K dated December 17, 2008 and filed December 19, 2008)
+10(oo)
Letter dated September 16, 2009 from Northrop Grumman Corporation to Dr. Ronald D. Sugar regarding Retirement and Transition (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 to Form 8-K dated September 16, 2009 and filed September 17, 2009)
+10(pp)
Policy Regarding the Recoupment of Certain Performance-Based Compensation Payments dated March 1, 2010 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, filed April 28, 2010)
+*10(qq)
Offering letter dated June 7, 2010, from Northrop Grumman Corporation to Sheila C. Cheston relating to position of Corporate Vice President and General Counsel
*12(a)
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
*21
Subsidiaries
*23
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
*24
Power of Attorney
*31.1
Rule 13a-15(e)/15d-15(e) Certification of Wesley G. Bush (Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
*31.2
Rule 13a-15(e)/15d-15(e) Certification of James F. Palmer (Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
**32.1
Certification of Wesley G. Bush pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
**32.2
Certification of James F. Palmer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
**101
Northrop Grumman Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, formatted in XBRL (Extensible Business Reporting Language); (i) the Consolidated Statements of Operations, (ii) Consolidated Statements of Financial Position, (iii) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity, and (v) Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
+
Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement
*
Filed with this Report
**
Furnished with this Report
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, on the 8th day of February 2011.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
By:
/s/ Kenneth N. Heintz
Kenneth N. Heintz
Corporate Vice President, Controller, and Chief
Accounting Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed on behalf of the registrant this the 8th day of February 2011, by the following persons and in the capacities indicated.

Market Capitalization: 20985250.23197174
1-Year Return: 0.01097209844738245
252-Day Return: $252_day_return