XML 36 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES LITIGATION We are subject to a number of lawsuits and claims arising out of the conduct of our business. The ability to predict the ultimate outcome of such matters involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties. We record a liability for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, including accruals for self-insured losses which are calculated based on historical claim data, specific loss development factors and other information. A range of total possible losses for all litigation matters cannot be reasonably estimated. Based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, we do not expect the ultimate outcome of currently pending lawsuits or claims against us, other than those discussed below, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, however, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these matters. With respect to the litigation matters below, if there was an adverse outcome individually or collectively, there could be a material impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations expected for the year. These litigation matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management's view of these matters may change in the future. Therefore, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these matters. During 2014, we received notification from a customer related to a possible equipment failure in a natural gas storage system in Northern Germany, which includes certain of our products. The customer initiated arbitral proceedings against us on June 19, 2015, under the rules of the German Institute of Arbitration e.V. (DIS). On August 3, 2016, the customer amended its claims and alleged damages of €202 million plus interest at an annual rate of prime + 5%. Hearings before the arbitration panel were held January 16, 2017 through January 23, 2017, and March 20, 2017 through March 21, 2017. In addition, on September 21, 2015, TRIUVA Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division against the Company and Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. alleging that the plaintiff is the owner of gas storage caverns in Etzel, Germany in which the Company provided certain equipment in connection with the development of the gas storage caverns. The plaintiff further alleges that the Company supplied equipment that was either defectively designed or failed to warn of risks that the equipment posed, and that these alleged defects caused damage to the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff seeks recovery of alleged compensatory and punitive damages of an unspecified amount, in addition to reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The allegations in this lawsuit are related to the claims made in the June 19, 2015 German arbitration referenced above. On June 7, 2018, the DIS arbitration panel issued a confidential Arbitration Ruling which addressed all claims asserted by the customer. The financial impact of the Arbitration Ruling is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements. The Company is vigorously contesting the claims made by TRIUVA in the Houston Federal Court. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of the claims asserted in the Houston Federal Court. On July 31, 2015, Rapid Completions LLC filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas against Baker Hughes Incorporated, Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., and others claiming infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,907,936; 7,134,505; 7,543,634; 7,861,774; and 8,657,009. On August 6, 2015, Rapid Completions amended its complaint to allege infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,074,451. On September 17, 2015, Rapid Completions and Packers Plus Energy Services Inc. sued Baker Hughes Canada Company in the Canada Federal Court on the related Canadian patent 2,412,072. On April 1, 2016, Rapid Completions removed U.S. Patent No. 6,907,936 from its claims in the lawsuit. On April 5, 2016, Rapid Completions filed a second lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas against Baker Hughes Incorporated, Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. and others claiming infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,303,501. These patents relate primarily to certain specific downhole completions equipment. The plaintiff has requested a permanent injunction against further alleged infringement, damages in an unspecified amount, supplemental and enhanced damages, and additional relief such as attorney's fees and costs. During August and September 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) agreed to institute an inter-partes review of U.S. Patent Nos 7,861,774; 7,134,505; 7,543,634; 6,907,936; 8,657,009; and 9,074,451. On August 29, 2017, the USPTO issued its final written decisions in the inter-partes reviews of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,657,009 and 9,074,451 finding that all claims of those patents were unpatentable. On August 31, 2017, the USPTO issued its final written decision in the inter-partes review of U.S. Patent 6,907,936 - the patent dropped from the lawsuit by the plaintiffs - finding that all claims of this patent were patentable. On October 27, 2017, Rapid Completions filed its notices of appeal of the USPTO’s final written decision in the inter-partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,657,009 and 9,074,451. Trial on the validity of asserted claims from Canada patent 2,412,072, was completed March 9, 2017. On December 7, 2017, the Canadian Court issued its judgment finding the patent claims asserted from Canada patent 2,412,072 against Baker Hughes Canada Company were invalid. On January 5, 2018, Rapid Completions filed its Notice of Appeal of the Canadian Court’s judgment of invalidity. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims. Following consummation of the Transactions, two purported holders of shares of Baker Hughes common stock, representing a total of 1,875,000 shares of common stock of Baker Hughes, filed petitions in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking appraisal for their shares pursuant to Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The action is captioned as follows: GKC Strategic Value Master Fund, LP F/K/A GKC Appraisal Rights Master Fund, LP and Walleye Trading LLC v. Baker Hughes Incorporated, Case No. 2017-0769. On July 12, 2018, the parties entered a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release of all claims asserted by the two shareholders. The Settlement Agreement does not have a material impact on the Company's financial statements. On February 17, 2017, GE Infrastructure Sensing, Inc. (now known as GE Infrastructure Sensing, LLC) (GEIS), a subsidiary of the Company, was served with a lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of New York by a company named Saniteq LLC claiming compensatory damages totaling $500 million plus punitive damages of an unspecified amount. The complaint is captioned Saniteq LLC v. GE Infrastructure Sensing, Inc., No. 17-cv-771 (E.D.N.Y 2017). The complaint generally alleges that GEIS breached a contract being negotiated between the parties and misappropriated unspecified trade secrets. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims. In January 2013, INEOS and Naphtachimie initiated expertise proceedings in Aix-en-Provence, France arising out of a fire at a chemical plant owned by INEOS in Lavera, France, which resulted in a 15-day plant shutdown and destruction of a steam turbine, which was part of a compressor train owned by Naphtachimie. The most recent quantification of the alleged damages is €250 million. Two of the Company's subsidiaries (and 17 other companies) were notified to participate in the proceedings. The proceedings are ongoing, and at this time, there is no indication that the Company's subsidiaries were involved in the incident. Although the outcome of the claims remains uncertain, BHGE's insurer has accepted coverage and is defending the Company in the expertise proceeding. In late November 2017, staff of the Boston office of the SEC notified GE that they are conducting an investigation of GE’s revenue recognition practices and internal controls over financial reporting related to long-term service agreements. The scope of the SEC’s request may include some BHGE contracts, expected to be mainly in our TPS business. We have provided documents to GE and are cooperating with them in their response to the SEC. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of this review. We insure against risks arising from our business to the extent deemed prudent by our management and to the extent insurance is available, but no assurance can be given that the nature and amount of that insurance will be sufficient to fully indemnify us against liabilities arising out of pending or future legal proceedings or other claims. Most of our insurance policies contain deductibles or self-insured retentions in amounts we deem prudent and for which we are responsible for payment. In determining the amount of self-insurance, it is our policy to self-insure those losses that are predictable, measurable and recurring in nature, such as claims for automobile liability, general liability and workers compensation. PRODUCT WARRANTIES We provide for estimated product warranty expenses when we sell the related products. Because warranty estimates are forecasts that are based on the best available information, primarily historical claims experience, claims costs may differ from amounts provided. An analysis of changes in the liability for product warranties are as follows:
Balance at December 31, 2017, and 2016, respectively | $ | 164 |  | $ | 74 |
Provisions | 18 |  | 18 |
Expenditures | (15 | ) | (26 | )
Other (1) | 119 |  | 1 |
Balance at June 30, 2018, and 2017, respectively | $ | 286 |  | $ | 67 |
(1) | Primarily related to the acquisition of Baker Hughes.
OTHER In the normal course of business with customers, vendors and others, we have entered into off-balance sheet arrangements, such as surety bonds for performance, letters of credit and other bank issued guarantees, which totaled approximately $3.4 billion at June 30, 2018. It is not practicable to estimate the fair value of these financial instruments. None of the off-balance sheet arrangements either has, or is likely to have, a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration