NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)

1. DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS

For more than a century, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. ("HII" or the "Company") has been designing, building, overhauling, and repairing ships primarily for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard. The Company conducts business primarily with the U.S. Government, principally the Department of Defense ("DoD"). As prime contractor, principal subcontractor, team member, or partner, HII participates in many high-priority U.S. defense technology programs. HII is organized into three reportable segments: Ingalls, Newport News, and Other. Through its Ingalls segment, HII is a builder of amphibious assault and expeditionary ships for the U.S. Navy, the sole builder of National Security Cutters ("NSCs") for the U.S. Coast Guard, and one of only two companies that builds the Navy's current fleet of DDG-51 Arleigh Burke -class destroyers. Through its Newport News segment, HII is the nation's sole designer, builder, and refueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and one of only two companies currently designing and building nuclear-powered submarines for the U.S. Navy. The Other segment was established to account for certain of the Company's non-shipbuilding commercial activities.

2. BASIS OF PRESENTATION

Principles of Consolidation - The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of HII and its subsidiaries have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP") and the instructions to Form 10-Q promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). All intercompany transactions and balances are eliminated in consolidation. For classification of current assets and liabilities related to its long-term production contracts, the Company uses the duration of these contracts as its operating cycle, which is generally longer than one year. Additionally, certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. See Note 3: Accounting Standards Updates.

These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include all adjustments of a normal recurring nature considered necessary by management for a fair presentation of the unaudited condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows and should be read in conjunction with the Company's audited consolidated financial statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 .

The quarterly information is labeled using a calendar convention; that is, first quarter is consistently labeled as ending on March 31, second quarter as ending on June 30, and third quarter as ending on September 30. It is management's long-standing practice to establish interim closing dates using a "fiscal" calendar, which requires the businesses to close their books on a Friday near these quarter-end dates in order to normalize the potentially disruptive effects of quarterly closings on business processes. The effects of this practice only exist for interim periods within a reporting year.

Accounting Estimates - The preparation of the Company's unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements 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.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 established budget top lines and provided sequestration relief for 2016 and 2017. Sequestration remains in effect for 2018 through 2021 and could result in significant decreases in DoD spending that could negatively impact the Company's revenues and its estimated recovery of goodwill and other long-lived assets.

Revenue Recognition - The majority of the Company's business is derived from long-term contracts for the construction of naval vessels, production of goods, and provision of services to the federal government, principally the U.S. Navy. In accounting for these contracts, the Company extensively utilizes the cost-to-cost measure of the percentage-of-completion method of accounting, principally based upon total costs incurred. Under this method, sales, including estimated earned fees or profits, are recorded as costs are incurred, generally based on the percentage that total costs incurred bear to total estimated costs at completion. 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. The Company estimates profit as the difference between total estimated revenues and total estimated cost of a contract and recognizes that profit over the life of the contract based on progress toward completion. If the Company estimates a contract will result in a loss, the full amount of the estimated loss is recognized against income in the period in which the loss is identified. The Company classifies contract revenues as product sales or service revenues depending upon the predominant attributes of the relevant underlying contracts.

The Company recognizes changes in estimates of contract sales, costs, and profits 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. Accordingly, the effect of the changes on future periods of contract performance is recognized as if the revised estimate had been the original estimate. For the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 , net cumulative catch-up adjustments increased operating income by $69 million and $55 million , respectively, and increased diluted earnings per share by $0.95 and $0.73 , respectively. Cumulative catch-up adjustments for the three months ended March 31, 2016 , included a $22 million favorable adjustment on a contract at the Ingalls segment , which increased diluted earnings per share by $0.30 . No individual adjustment was material to the Company's condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income for the three months ended March 31, 2015 .

The Company also enters into other types of contracts, including certain services or commercial arrangements. For such contracts not associated with the design, development, manufacture, or modification of complex equipment, revenues are recognized upon delivery or as services are rendered once persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, the price is fixed or determinable, and collectibility is reasonably assured. Costs related to these contracts are expensed as incurred.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments - Except for the Company's long-term debt, the carrying amounts of the Company's financial instruments recorded at historical cost approximate fair value due to the short-term nature of the instruments and low credit risk associated with the respective counterparties.

The Company maintains multiple grantor trusts established to fund certain non-qualified pension plans. These trusts consist primarily of available-for-sale investments in marketable securities. The assets are held at fair value, a significant majority of investments held in the trusts are valued within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy, and no material amounts are valued within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. These trusts were valued at $76 million and $74 million as of March 31, 2016 , and December 31, 2015 , respectively, and are presented within miscellaneous other assets within the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of financial position.

Related Party Transactions - On March 29, 2011, HII entered into a Separation and Distribution Agreement (the "Separation Agreement") with its former parent company, Northrop Grumman Corporation ("Northrop Grumman"), and Northrop Grumman's subsidiaries (Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. and Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation), pursuant to which HII was legally and structurally separated from Northrop Grumman. The spin-off from Northrop Grumman was a transaction under common control. As a result, no change in the historical basis of HII's assets or liabilities was recorded as part of the spin-off. In connection with the spin-off, HII entered into a Tax Matters Agreement with Northrop Grumman related to taxes prior to the spin-off. As of each of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , the Company was due $31 million from Northrop Grumman under the Tax Matters Agreement. As of each of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , the Company had $84 million outstanding under Industrial Revenue Bonds issued by the Mississippi Business Finance Corporation. Prior to the spin-off, repayment of principal and interest was guaranteed by Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation. The guaranty remains in effect, and the Company has agreed to indemnify Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation for any losses related to the guaranty.

3. ACCOUNTING STANDARDS UPDATES

In February 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842)”, which establishes a right-of-use model that requires a lessee to record the right-of-use asset and a lease liability on the balance sheet for all leases with terms longer than 12 months. Leases will be classified as either finance or operating, with classification affecting the pattern of expense recognition in the statement of operations and comprehensive income. This guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those reporting periods. Early adoption is permitted and should be applied using a modified retrospective approach. The Company is in the process of evaluating the potential

impacts of ASU 2016-02 on its consolidated financial statements and disclosures, contracting and accounting processes, internal controls, and information technology systems.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-07, "Investments-Equity Method and Joint Ventures (Topic 323)”. The update simplifies the equity method of accounting by eliminating the requirement to retrospectively apply the equity method to an investment that subsequently qualifies for such accounting as a result of an increase in the level of ownership interest or degree of influence. Consequently, when an investment qualifies for the equity method, the cost of acquiring the additional interest in the investee would be added to the current basis of the investor’s previously held interest, and the equity method would be applied subsequent to the date on which the investor obtains the ability to exercise influence over the investee. The standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within those periods. The Company does not expect the adoption of ASU 2016-07 to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

In May 2014, the FASB issued the final standard on revenue from contracts with customers. The standard, issued as ASU 2014-09 (Topic 606), outlines a single comprehensive model for entities to use in accounting for revenue arising from contracts with customers and supersedes most current revenue recognition guidance, including industry-specific guidance. The core principle of the standard is that "an entity shall recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services." The guidance permits the use of either a retrospective or cumulative effect transition method. In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-08, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net)", which clarifies the revenue recognition guidance on whether an entity is a principal or an agent in an arrangement, thus determining gross or net revenue presentation. The standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, but early adoption for annual reporting periods beginning after December 31, 2016, is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact that will result from the implementation of ASU 2014-09 and ASU 2016-08 on its financial statements and disclosures, contracting and accounting processes, internal controls, and information technology systems.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, “Compensation-Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting”, which changes how companies account for certain aspects of share-based payment awards to employees, including the accounting for income taxes, forfeitures, statutory tax withholding requirements, and classification in the statement of cash flows. Under the new guidance, income tax benefits and deficiencies of exercised or vested awards are to be recognized as income tax benefit or expense in the statement of operations and comprehensive income and the tax effects of exercised or vested awards should be treated as discrete items in the reporting period in which they occur. Excess tax benefits should be classified along with other income tax cash flows as an operating activity within the consolidated statement of cash flows. The Company may make an accounting policy election to either estimate the number of awards that are expected to vest or account for forfeitures when they occur. The Company elected to early adopt ASU 2016-09, as of January 1, 2016. See Note 7: Earnings Per Share, Note 11: Income Taxes, and Note 17: Stock Compensation Plans.

Other pronouncements issued but not effective until after December 31, 2016 are not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

4. AVONDALE

In 2010, plans were announced to consolidate the Company's Ingalls shipbuilding operations by winding down shipbuilding at the Avondale, Louisiana facility in 2013 after completion of LPD-class ships that were under construction at this facility. In October 2014, the Company ceased shipbuilding construction operations at the Avondale facility. The consolidation was intended to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and address shipbuilding overcapacity.

In connection with and as a result of the decision to wind down shipbuilding at the Avondale facility, the Company began incurring and paying related costs, including, but not limited to, severance expense, relocation expense, and asset write-downs related to the Avondale facilities. The Company believes such costs should be recoverable under existing flexibly-priced contracts or future negotiated contracts in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation ("FAR") provisions for the treatment of restructuring and shutdown related costs.

The Company has engaged in communications and negotiations with the U.S. Navy since 2010 regarding the amount and recovery of the Company's restructuring and shutdown costs. The Company submitted a revised proposal in March 2015 to address the concerns of the DCAA and to reflect an estimated total cost of $287 million . In July 2015, the Company received a letter from the Supervisor of Shipbuilding requesting that the Company either provide cost estimates to address the Company’s positions related to restructure or file a dispute. The Company responded in July 2015 by addressing the matters raised by the Supervisor of Shipbuilding and recommending the parties continue efforts to seek a mutual resolution. In August 2015, the Company received a letter from the Supervisor of Shipbuilding's Contracting Officer ("Contracting Officer"), with a preliminary determination that the Company’s method of allocating as indirect costs certain employee retention and incentive expenses, which could be up to $57 million , did not comply with cost accounting allocation regulations. The Company responded in September 2015 with its basis supporting its cost allocation positions and sought a determination that supports the Company’s method of cost allocation.

Although the Company cannot predict what the Contracting Officer will determine, the Company anticipates a resolution that is substantially in accordance with management's cost recovery expectations. Accordingly, HII has treated these costs as allowable costs in determining the earnings performance on its contracts in process. The Contracting Officer may, however, disagree with the Company’s cost allocation method, and any subsequent inability to recover costs substantially in accordance with management’s cost recovery expectations could result in a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

As of March 31, 2016 , and December 31, 2015 , the Company had incurred restructuring and shutdown related costs of $282 million and $281 million , respectively. As of March 31, 2016 , and December 31, 2015 , $156 million and $169 million , respectively, of these restructuring and shutdown related costs were capitalized in inventoried costs, and the remaining $126 million and $112 million , respectively, of these costs were included under our contracts in accounts receivable and advance payments and billings in excess of revenues.

5. GULFPORT

In September 2013, the Company announced the closure of its Gulfport Composite Center of Excellence in Gulfport, Mississippi, part of the Ingalls reportable segment, which it completed in August 2014. In connection with this closure, the Company incurred total costs of $54 million , consisting of $52 million in accelerated depreciation of fixed assets and $2 million in personnel, facility shutdown, and other related costs. In July 2014, the Company received a letter from the Supervisor of Shipbuilding taking exception to the Company's treatment of the Gulfport closure costs. In April 2015, the Company submitted recommended accounting alternatives, which the U.S. Government is currently evaluating. The Company anticipates a resolution that is substantially in accordance with management's cost recovery expectations. An inability, however, to recover Gulfport closure costs could result in a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

In March 2015, the Company sold the Gulfport Composite Center of Excellence to the Mississippi State Port Authority for $32 million , resulting in a gain on disposition of $9 million , recorded as a reduction to contract costs in accordance with the terms of the Company’s contracts with the U.S. Government.

6. STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY

Treasury Stock - In October 2015, the Company's board of directors authorized an increase in the Company's stock repurchase program from $600 million to $1,200 million . Repurchases are made from time to time at management's discretion in accordance with applicable federal securities laws. For the three months ended March 31, 2016 , the Company settled for cash $2 million of shares repurchased in the prior year. During the first quarter of 2016 , the Company also repurchased 366,726 shares at a cost of $48 million , of which approximately $6 million was not yet settled for cash as of March 31, 2016 . For the three months ended March 31, 2015 , the Company repurchased 210,240 shares at a cost of $29 million . The cost of purchased shares is recorded as treasury stock in the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of financial position.

Dividends - The Company declared cash dividends per share of $0.50 and $0.40 for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 , respectively. The Company paid cash dividends totaling $24 million and $19 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 , respectively.

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income - Other comprehensive income (loss) refers to gains and losses recorded as an element of stockholders' equity but excluded from net earnings (loss). The accumulated other comprehensive loss as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , was comprised of unamortized benefit plan costs of $831 million and $843 million , respectively, and other comprehensive income items of $2 million .

The changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) by component for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 , were as follows:

¹ These accumulated comprehensive income (loss) components are included in the computation of net periodic benefit cost. See Note 16: Employee Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits. The tax benefit associated with amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) for each of the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 , was $8 million .

T he Company's calculation of diluted earnings per common share includes the dilutive effects of the assumed exercise of stock options and vesting of restricted stock based on the treasury stock method. As a result of the adoption of ASU 2016-09, the Company excluded excess tax benefits from the assumed proceeds for share repurchases under the treasury stock method beginning in 2016. The effect of adopting ASU 2016-09 on diluted shares outstanding was not material for the three months ended March 31, 2016 .

Under this method, the Company has excluded from the diluted share amounts presented above the effects of 0.1 million stock options and 0.5 million Restricted Performance Stock Rights ("RPSRs") for the three months ended March 31, 2016 . The amounts presented above for the three months ended March 31, 2015 , exclude the impact of 0.3 million stock options and 0.8 million RPSRs under the treasury stock method.

FAS/CAS Adjustment - The FAS/CAS Adjustment reflects the difference between expenses for pension and other postretirement benefits determined in accordance with GAAP and the expenses for these items included in segment operating income in accordance with U.S. Cost Accounting Standards ("CAS").

The following table presents the Company's assets by segment.

9. INVENTORIED COSTS, NET

Inventoried costs were composed of the following:

10. GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS

Goodwill

HII performs impairment tests for goodwill as of November 30 of each year and between annual impairment tests if an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of the Company's reporting units below their carrying value.

Accumulated goodwill impairment losses as of each of March 31, 2016 , and December 31, 2015 , were $2,877 million . The accumulated goodwill impairment losses for Ingalls as of each of March 31, 2016 , and December 31, 2015 , were $1,568 million . The accumulated goodwill impairment losses for Newport News as of each of March 31, 2016 , and December 31, 2015 , were $1,187 million . The accumulated goodwill impairment losses for the Other segment as of each of March 31, 2016 , and December 31, 2015 , were $122 million .

Other Intangible Assets

The Company's purchased intangible assets are being amortized on a straight-line basis or a method based on the pattern of benefits over their estimated useful lives. Net intangible assets consist principally of amounts pertaining to nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and submarine program intangible assets, with an aggregate weighted-average useful life of 40 years based on the long life cycle of the related programs. Aggregate amortization expense was $5 million and $7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 , respectively.

The Company expects amortization expense for purchased intangible assets of approximately $21 million in each of 2016, 2017, and 2018, and $20 million in each of 2019 and 2020.

11. INCOME TAXES

The Company's earnings are principally domestic and its effective tax rates on earnings from operations for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 , were 23.2% and 34.6% , respectively. The lower effective tax rate for the three months ended March 31, 2016 , was primarily attributable to the adoption of ASU 2016-09, which reduced income tax expense by the income tax benefits resulting from stock award settlement activity.

For the three months ended March 31, 2016 , the Company's effective tax rate differed from the federal statutory rate primarily as a result of the adoption of ASU 2016-09, which reduced income tax expense by the income tax benefits resulting from stock award settlement activity, and the domestic manufacturing deduction.

Deferred state income taxes reflect the change in deferred state tax assets and liabilities in the relevant period. These amounts are recorded within operating income, while the current period state income tax expense is charged to contract costs and included in cost of sales and service revenues in segment operating income.

Credit Facility - On July 13, 2015, the Company entered into a Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the “Amended Credit Facility”) with third-party lenders. The Amended Credit Facility includes a revolving credit facility of $1,250 million , which may be drawn upon during a period of five years from July 13, 2015. The revolving credit facility includes a letter of credit subfacility of $500 million . The revolving credit facility has a variable interest rate on outstanding borrowings based on the London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") plus a spread based upon the Company's leverage ratio, which may vary between 1.25% and 2.0% . The revolving credit facility also has a commitment fee rate on the unutilized balance based on the Company’s leverage ratio. The commitment fee rate as of March 31, 2016 , was 0.25% and may vary between 0.25% and 0.35% .

The Amended Credit Facility contains customary affirmative and negative covenants, as well as a financial covenant based on a maximum total leverage ratio. The terms of the Amended Credit Facility also limit the Company's ability to pay dividends. Each of the Company's existing and future material wholly owned domestic subsidiaries, except those that are specifically designated as unrestricted subsidiaries, are and will be guarantors under the Amended Credit Facility. Substantially all tangible and intangible material assets of the Company and domestic subsidiaries are pledged as collateral under the Amended Credit Facility.

As of March 31, 2016 , approximately $25 million in letters of credit were issued but undrawn, and the remaining $1,225 million of the revolving credit facility was unutilized. The Company had unamortized debt issuance costs associated with the Amended Credit Facility of $9 million and $10 million as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , respectively.

Senior Notes - In December 2014, the Company issued $600 million aggregate principal amount of unregistered 5.000% senior notes due December 15, 2021. In November 2015, the Company issued $600 million aggregate principal amount of unregistered 5.000% senior notes due November 15, 2025, the net proceeds of which were used to repurchase the Company's 7.125% senior notes due March 15, 2021. Interest on the Company's senior notes is payable semi-annually.

The terms of the 5.000% senior notes limit the Company’s ability and the ability of certain of its subsidiaries to create liens, enter into sale and leaseback transactions, sell assets, and effect consolidations or mergers. The Company had unamortized debt issuance costs associated with the senior notes of $21 million and $22 million as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , respectively.

Mississippi Economic Development Revenue Bonds - As of each of March 31, 2016 , and December 31, 2015 , the Company had $84 million outstanding under Industrial Revenue Bonds issued by the Mississippi Business Finance Corporation. These bonds accrue interest at a fixed rate of 7.81% per annum (payable semi-annually) and mature in 2024.

Gulf Opportunity Zone Industrial Development Revenue Bonds - As of each of March 31, 2016 , and December 31, 2015 , the Company had $21 million outstanding under Gulf Opportunity Zone Industrial Development Revenue Bonds issued by the Mississippi Business Finance Corporation. These bonds accrue interest at a fixed rate of 4.55% per annum (payable semi-annually) and mature in 2028.

The Company's debt arrangements contain customary affirmative and negative covenants, including a maximum leverage ratio. The Company was in compliance with all debt covenants during the three months ended March 31, 2016 .

The estimated fair values of the Company's total long-term debt as of March 31, 2016 , and December 31, 2015 , were $1,383 million and $1,343 million , respectively. The fair values of the Company's long-term debt were calculated based on either recent trades of the Company's debt instruments in inactive markets or yields available on debt with substantially similar risks, terms and maturities, which fall within Level 2 under the fair value hierarchy.

The Company does not have any principal payments due on long-term debt within the next five years.

13. INVESTIGATIONS, CLAIMS, AND LITIGATION

The Company is involved in legal proceedings before various courts and administrative agencies, and is periodically subject to government examinations, inquiries and investigations. Pursuant to FASB Accounting Standards Codification 450 Contingencies, the Company has accrued for losses associated with investigations, claims, and litigation when, and to the extent that, loss amounts related to the investigations, claims, and litigation are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The actual losses that might be incurred to resolve such investigations, claims, and litigation may be higher or lower than the amounts accrued. For matters where a material loss is probable or reasonably possible and the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated, but the Company is able to reasonably estimate a range of possible losses, the Company will disclose such estimated range in these notes. This estimated range is based on information currently available to the Company and involves elements of judgment and significant uncertainties. Any estimated range of possible loss does not represent the Company's maximum possible loss exposure. For matters as to which the Company is not able to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of loss, the Company will indicate the reasons why it is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss. For matters not specifically described in these notes, the Company does not believe, based on information currently available to it, that it is reasonably possible that the liabilities, if any, arising from such investigations, claims, and litigation will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company has, in certain cases, provided disclosure regarding certain matters for which the Company believes at this time that the likelihood of material loss is remote.

False Claims Act Complaint - In January 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DoJ") first informed the Company through Northrop Grumman of a False Claims Act complaint (the "Complaint") that was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The redacted copy of the Complaint the Company received alleges that, through largely unspecified fraudulent means, the Company and Northrop Grumman obtained federal funds that were restricted by law for the consequences of Hurricane Katrina, and used those funds to cover costs under certain shipbuilding contracts that were unrelated to Katrina and for which Northrop Grumman and the Company were not entitled to recovery under the contracts. The Complaint seeks monetary damages of at least $835 million , plus penalties, attorneys' fees, and other costs of suit. Damages under the False Claims Act may be trebled upon a finding of liability.

In July 2012, the District Court entered an order permitting the Company to disclose certain information not included in the redacted copy of the Complaint received by the Company, including the date the Complaint was filed, the decision of the DoJ to decline intervention in the case, and the principal parties involved in the case. The Complaint was filed on June 2, 2010, by relators Gerald M. Fisher and Donald C. Holmes. In December 2011, the DoJ filed a Notice of Election to Decline Intervention in the case. As of August 29, 2012, Gerald M. Fisher was no longer a relator in or party to this case. In February 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue, and the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case and a motion to disqualify relator Holmes, and all other matters were stayed pending resolution of those motions. In June 2015, the District Court granted the Company’s motion to disqualify Holmes as relator, dismissed the case as to Holmes, and entered final judgment in favor of the Company. Holmes appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and, in March 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision.

Based upon a review to date of the information available to the Company, the Company believes that it has substantive defenses to the allegations in the Complaint, that the claims as set forth in the Complaint evidence a fundamental lack of understanding of the terms and conditions in the Company's shipbuilding contracts, including the post-Katrina modifications to those contracts, and the manner in which the parties performed in connection with the contracts, and that the claims as set forth in the Complaint lack merit. The Company, therefore, believes that the claims as set forth in the Complaint will not result in a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously, but the Company cannot predict

what new or revised claims might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome.

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, treble, or other damages. U.S. Government regulations provide that certain findings against a contractor may also lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracts or the loss of export privileges. Any suspension or debarment would have a material effect on the Company because of its reliance on government contracts.

In January 2013, the Company disclosed to the DoD, including the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, including the U.S. Coast Guard, pursuant to the FAR, that it had initiated an internal investigation regarding whether certain employees at Ingalls mischarged time or misstated progress on Navy and Coast Guard contracts. The Company conducted an internal investigation, led by external counsel, and has taken remedial actions, including the termination of employees in instances where the Company believed grounds for termination existed. The Company provided information regarding its investigation to the relevant government agencies. The Company agreed with the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard that they would initially withhold $24 million in payments on existing contracts pending receipt of additional information from the Company's internal investigation. The U.S. Navy has reduced its portion of the withhold from $18.2 million to $4.7 million , while expressing its view that the gross amount of potential mischarging incurred by the Navy will likely not exceed $3.1 million . The U.S. Coast Guard informed the Company in June 2014 that it was provisionally reducing its withhold from $5.8 million to $3.6 million . Based on the results of its internal investigation, the Company estimates that the maximum amount of U.S. Navy and Coast Guard mischarging is approximately $4 million . The Company is continuing discussions with its U.S. Government customers regarding the potential release of an additional portion of the withheld funds, but the Company cannot predict whether or when these customers will agree to any additional release of the withhold amounts.

In June 2015, the DoJ informed the Company that it is investigating the matters disclosed by the Company to the DoD in January 2013. In July 2015, the DoJ requested information from the Company, and the Company is cooperating with the DoJ’s requests and has provided certain information to the DoJ. Depending upon the outcome of this matter, which could result in litigation by the DoJ against the Company, the Company could be subject to civil penalties, damages, and/or suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracts, which could have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Given the current stage of the Company’s discussions with the DoJ, the Company is currently unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of this matter.

In 2015, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand from the DoJ relating to an investigation of certain allegedly non-conforming parts the Company purchased from one of its suppliers for use in connection with U.S. Government contracts. The Company has cooperated with the DoJ in connection with its investigation. In 2016, the Company was made aware that it is a defendant in a False Claims Act lawsuit filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida related to the Company’s purchases of the allegedly non-conforming parts from the supplier. Depending upon the outcome of this matter, the Company could be subject to civil penalties, damages, and/or suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracts, which could have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The matter remains sealed and given the current posture of the matter, the Company is unable to estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss or to express an opinion regarding the ultimate outcome.

Asbestos Related Claims - HII and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII. The cases allege various injuries, including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former executive officers are also named as defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive officers. The average cost per case to resolve cases during the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 , was immaterial individually and in the aggregate. The Company’s estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and

from case to case, reforms made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation.

Other Litigation - The Company and its predecessor-in-interest have been in litigation with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (the “Republic”) since 2002 over a contract for the repair, refurbishment, and modernization at Ingalls of two foreign-built frigates. The case proceeded towards arbitration, then appeared to settle favorably, but the settlement was overturned in court and the matter returned to litigation. In March 2014, the Company filed an arbitral statement of claim asserting breaches of the contract and $173 million in damages plus substantial interest and litigation expenses. In July 2014, the Republic filed in the arbitration a statement of defense denying all the Company’s allegations and a counterclaim alleging late redelivery of the frigates, unfinished work and breach of warranty and asserting damages of $61 million plus interest. An arbitration hearing was held in January 2015, and the Company cannot predict when the arbitration panel will render a decision. No assurances can be provided regarding the ultimate outcome of this matter.

The Company is party to various claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Although the Company believes that the resolution of any of these various claims and legal proceedings will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of these matters.

14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Contract Performance Contingencies - Contract profit margins may include estimates of revenues for matters on which the customer and the Company have not reached agreement, 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 March 31, 2016 , the recognized amounts related to claims and requests for equitable adjustment were not material individually or in aggregate.

Guarantees of Performance Obligations - From time to time in the ordinary course of business, HII may enter into joint ventures, teaming, and other business arrangements to support the Company's products and services. The Company generally strives to limit its exposure under these arrangements to its investment in the arrangement, or to the extent of obligations under the applicable contract. In some cases, however, HII may be required to guarantee performance of the arrangement's obligations and, in such cases, generally obtains cross-indemnification from the other members of the arrangement.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may guarantee obligations of its subsidiaries under certain contracts. Generally, the Company is liable under such an arrangement only if its subsidiary is unable to perform under its contract. Historically, the Company has not incurred any substantial liabilities resulting from these guarantees. As of March 31, 2016 , the Company was 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 environmental remediation has been accrued where it is probable that the Company will incur such costs in the future to address environmental conditions 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 another environmental agency, and the related costs can be estimated by management. 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 March 31, 2016 , the probable future cost for environmental remediation was $1 million , which is accrued in other current liabilities. 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 improvements in remediation technology. Should other PRPs not pay their allocable share of remediation costs, the Company may incur costs exceeding those already estimated and accrued. In addition, there are certain 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 believe that future remediation expenditures will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Financial Arrangements - In the ordinary course of business, HII uses standby letters of credit issued by commercial banks and surety bonds issued by insurance companies principally to support the Company's self-insured workers' compensation plans. As of March 31, 2016 , the Company had $25 million in standby letters of credit issued but undrawn, as indicated in Note 12: Debt, and $356 million of surety bonds outstanding.

U.S. Government Claims - From time to time, the U.S. Government advises the Company of claims and penalties concerning certain potential disallowed costs. When such findings are presented, the Company and U.S. Government representatives engage in discussions to enable HII to evaluate the merits of these claims, as well as to assess the amounts being claimed. The Company does not believe that the outcome of any such matters will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

15. IMPACTS FROM HURRICANES

In August 2005, the Company's Ingalls operations were significantly impacted by Hurricane 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. At the time of the storm, the Company had an 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 recovered $677.5 million of its Hurricane Katrina claim from participating program insurers, which included $180 million from Factory Mutual Insurance Company (“FM Global”) in settlement of litigation arising from a disagreement concerning the coverage of certain losses related to Hurricane Katrina.

 

In January 2011, the Company, through a predecessor-in-interest, filed suit in Superior Court in California against Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc. ("Aon"), which acted as broker to the predecessor-in-interest in connection with the policy with FM Global, seeking damages for breach of contract, professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation, as well as declaratory relief. Those included damages unrecovered from FM Global plus costs, legal fees, and expenses incurred in the lawsuit against FM Global, as well as interest. In January 2014, the Company amended its complaint to allege fraud and seek punitive damages.

In May 2015, the Company and Aon entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which Aon made a cash payment of $150 million to the Company and the Company released its claims against Aon. In the second quarter of 2015 , the $150 million settlement was recorded as a gain in operating income and the Company recorded a credit to the U.S. Government, which resulted in a reduction in operating income of $14 million . Should the U.S. Government disagree with the Company’s allocation of proceeds, the Company may be required to allocate additional amounts to the U.S. Government. The $150 million gain and allowable cost credit resulted in a net favorable impact to operating income for the second quarter of 2015 of $136 million .

16. EMPLOYEE PENSION AND OTHER POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS

The Company provides defined benefit pension plans and postretirement benefit plans, and defined contribution pension plans to eligible employees.

The costs of the Company's defined benefit pension plans and other postretirement plans for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 , were as follows:

The Company made the following contributions to its pension and other postretirement plans for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 :

For the year ending December 31, 2016, the Company expects cash contributions to its qualified defined benefit pension plans to be $167 million , all of which will be discretionary.

17. STOCK COMPENSATION PLANS

 

The Company elected to early adopt ASU 2016-09, as of January 1, 2016. Accordingly, income tax benefits of $18 million resulting from stock award settlement activity during the three months ended March 31, 2016 , were recognized as income tax benefits in the unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income. These tax benefits were reported as operating activities in the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of cash flows. Prior year tax benefits for the three months ended March 31, 2015 , of $13 million were retrospectively adjusted in the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of cash flows to conform to the current year presentation. In accordance with the new standard, the Company will continue to present all cash payments made to taxing authorities on behalf of the employees for withheld shares as financing activities in the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of cash flows. The Company has maintained its standing forfeiture accounting policy and continues to estimate the number of awards expected to vest in the future.

During the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 , the Company issued new stock awards as follows:

Restricted Performance Stock Rights - For the three months ended March 31, 2016 , the Company granted approximately 0.2 million RPSRs at a weighted average share price of $132.81 . These rights are subject to cliff vesting on December 31, 2018. For the three months ended March 31, 2015 , the Company granted approximately 0.1 million RPSRs at a weighted average share price of $142.41 . These rights are subject to cliff vesting on December 31, 2017. The RPSRs are subject to the achievement of performance-based targets at the end of the respective vesting periods. Based upon the Company's results measured against such targets, between 0% and 200% of the original stated grants are expected to ultimately vest.

For each of the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 , 0.8 million stock awards vested, of which approximately 0.3 million were transferred to the Company from employees in satisfaction of minimum tax withholding obligations.

The following table summarizes the status of the Company's outstanding stock awards as of March 31, 2016 :

Stock Options - The following table summarizes the status of the Company's stock option awards as of March 31, 2016 :

Compensation Expense

The Company recorded stock-based compensation for the value of awards granted to Company employees and non-employee members of the board of directors for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 , of $5 million and $4 million , respectively.

The Company recognized tax benefits for stock-based compensation in the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 , of $20 million and $1 million , respectively.

Unrecognized Compensation Expense

As of March 31, 2016 , the Company had less than $1 million of unrecognized compensation expense associated with Restricted Stock Rights ("RSRs") granted in 2014, which will be recognized over a weighted average period of 1.2 years , and $40 million of unrecognized expense associated with RPSRs granted in 2016, 2015, and 2014, which will be recognized over a weighted average period of 1.6 years .