Lucas to pay $88m to US Navy
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Lucas to pay $88m to US Navy
Lucas Industries has agreed to pay another $88m (pounds 58m) to settle claims that it supplied sub-standard parts to the US Navy. The decision ends a two-year Pentagon investigation into the company. The car parts and aerospace company will make further provisions of pounds 95m when it announces its profits on Monday, and said the division that caused the trouble is to be sold, writes Russell Hotten.
Lucas has already paid a pounds 12m fine to settle criminal proceedings and last year said provisions of pounds 200m included an undisclosed amount to cover the US action.The settlement avoids years of costly and complex litigation and the possibility that Lucas would struggle to win new defence contracts in the US until the problems had been settled. George Simpson, Lucas chief executive, said the financial impact of the US troubles was "out of all proportion to the issues involved, but we believe this was the best settlement available".
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments