v3.23.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES LITIGATION We are subject to legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. Because legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of such matters. We record a liability for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Based on the opinion of management, we do not expect the ultimate outcome of currently pending legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. However, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these matters. On July 31, 2018, International Engineering & Construction S.A. ("IEC") initiated arbitration proceedings in New York administered by the International Center for Dispute Resolution ("ICDR") against the Company and its subsidiaries arising out of a series of sales and service contracts entered between IEC and the Company’s subsidiaries for the sale and installation of LNG plants and related power generation equipment in Nigeria ("Contracts"). Prior to the filing of the IEC Arbitration, the Company’s subsidiaries made demands for payment due under the Contracts. On August 15, 2018, the Company’s subsidiaries initiated a separate demand for ICDR arbitration against IEC for claims of additional costs and amounts due under the Contracts. On October 10, 2018, IEC filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company seeking to compel non-signatory Baker Hughes entities to participate in the arbitration filed by IEC. The complaint is captioned International Engineering & Construction S.A. et al. v. Baker Hughes, a GE company, LLC, et al. No. 18-cv-09241 ("S.D.N.Y 2018"); this action was dismissed by the Court on August 13, 2019. In the arbitration, IEC alleges breach of contract and other claims against the Company and its subsidiaries and seeks recovery of alleged compensatory damages, in addition to reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and arbitration costs. On March 15, 2019, IEC amended its request for arbitration to alleged damages of $591 million of lost profits plus unspecified additional costs based on alleged non-performance of the contracts in dispute. The arbitration hearing was held from December 9, 2019 to December 20, 2019. On March 3, 2020, IEC amended their damages claim to $700 million of alleged loss cash flow or, in the alternative, $244.9 million of lost profits and various costs based on alleged non-performance of the contracts in dispute, and in addition $4.8 million of liquidated damages, $58.6 million in take-or-pay costs of feed gas, and unspecified additional costs of rectification and take-or-pay future obligations, plus unspecified interest and attorneys' fees. On May 3, 2020, the arbitration panel dismissed IEC's request for take-or-pay damages. On May 29, 2020, IEC quantified their claim for legal fees at $14.2 million and reduced their alternative claim from $244.9 million to approximately $235 million. The Company and its subsidiaries have contested IEC’s claims and are pursuing claims for compensation under the contracts. On October 31, 2020, the ICDR notified the arbitration panel’s final award, which dismissed the majority of IEC’s claims and awarded a portion of the Company’s claims. On January 27, 2021, IEC filed a petition to vacate the arbitral award in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York. On March 5, 2021, the Company filed a petition to confirm the arbitral award, and on March 8, 2021, the Company removed the matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On November 16, 2021, the court granted the Company's petition to confirm the award and denied IEC's petition to vacate. During the second quarter of 2022, IEC paid the amounts owed under the arbitration award, which had an immaterial impact on the Company’s financial statements. On February 3, 2022, IEC initiated another arbitration proceeding in New York administered by the ICDR against certain of the Company’s subsidiaries arising out of the same project which formed the basis of the first arbitration. On March 25, 2022, the Company's subsidiaries initiated a separate demand for ICDR arbitration against IEC for claims of additional costs and amounts due; such claims against IEC have now been resolved, with any consideration having an immaterial impact on the Company’s financial statements. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of the proceeding which is pending against the Company’s subsidiaries. On March 15, 2019 and March 18, 2019, the City of Riviera Beach Pension Fund and Richard Schippnick, respectively, filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery shareholder derivative lawsuits for and on Baker Hughes' behalf against GE, the then-current members of the Board of Directors of Baker Hughes and Baker Hughes as a nominal defendant, related to the decision to (i) terminate the contractual prohibition barring GE from selling any of Baker Hughes’ shares before July 3, 2019; (ii) repurchase $1.5 billion in Baker Hughes' stock from GE; (iii) permit GE to sell approximately $2.5 billion in Baker Hughes' stock through a secondary offering; and (iv) enter into a series of other agreements and amendments that will govern the ongoing relationship between Baker Hughes and GE (collectively, the “2018 Transactions”). The complaints in both lawsuits allege, among other things, that GE, as Baker Hughes' controlling stockholder, and the members of Baker Hughes' Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the 2018 Transactions. The relief sought in the complaints includes a request for a declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, that GE was unjustly enriched, disgorgement of profits, an award of damages sustained by Baker Hughes, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 21, 2019, the Chancery Court entered an order consolidating the Schippnick and City of Riviera Beach complaints under consolidated C.A. No. 2019-0201-AGB, styled in re Baker Hughes, a GE company derivative litigation. On May 10, 2019, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the members of Baker Hughes' Conflicts Committee, and on May 15, 2019, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against former Baker Hughes director Martin Craighead. On June 7, 2019, the defendants and nominal defendant filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that the derivative plaintiffs failed to make a demand on Baker Hughes' Board of Directors to pursue the claims itself, and GE and Baker Hughes' Board of Directors filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The Chancery Court denied the motions on October 8, 2019, except granted GE’s motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim against it. On October 31, 2019, Baker Hughes' Board of Directors designated a Special Litigation Committee and empowered it with full authority to investigate and evaluate the allegations and issues raised in the derivative litigation. The Special Litigation Committee filed a motion to stay the derivative litigation during its investigation. On December 3, 2019, the Chancery Court granted the motion and stayed the derivative litigation until June 1, 2020. On May 20, 2020, the Chancery Court granted an extension of the stay to October 1, 2020, and on September 29, 2020, the Court granted a further extension of the stay to October 15, 2020. On October 13, 2020, the Special Litigation Committee filed its report with the Court. On April 17, 2023, the Court granted the Special Litigation Committee’s motion to terminate the litigation. On August 13, 2019, Tri-State Joint Fund filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on the behalf of itself and all similarly situated public stockholders of Baker Hughes Incorporated ("BHI") against the General Electric Company ("GE"), the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, and certain former BHI Officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and other claims in connection with the combination of BHI and the oil and gas business ("GE O&G") of GE ("the Transactions"). On October 28, 2019, City of Providence filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on behalf of itself and all similarly situated public shareholders of BHI against GE, the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, and certain former BHI Officers alleging substantially the same claims in connection with the Transactions. The relief sought in these complaints include a request for a declaration that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, an award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The lawsuits have been consolidated, and plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on December 17, 2019 against certain former BHI officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and against GE for aiding and abetting those breaches. The December 2019 complaint omitted the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, except for Mr. Craighead who also served as President and CEO of BHI. Mr. Craighead and Ms. Ross, who served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of BHI, remain named in the December 2019 complaint along with GE. The relief sought in the consolidated complaint includes a declaration that the former BHI officers breached their fiduciary duties and that GE aided and abetted those breaches, an award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On or around February 12, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. On or around October 27, 2020, the Chancery Court granted GE’s motion to dismiss, and granted in part the motion to dismiss filed by Mr. Craighead and Ms. Ross, thereby dismissing all of the claims against GE and Ms. Ross, and all but one of the claims against Mr. Craighead. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of the remaining claim. On or around February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named plaintiffs in a putative securities class action styled The Reckstin Family Trust, et al., v. C3.ai, Inc., et al., No. 4:22-cv-01413-HSG, filed an amended class action complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Amended Complaint names the following as defendants: (i) C3.ai., Inc. (“C3 AI”), (ii) certain of C3 AI’s current and/or former officers and directors, (iii) certain underwriters for the C3 AI initial public offering (the “IPO”), and (iv) Baker Hughes, and its President and CEO (who formerly served as a director on the board of C3 AI). The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) in connection with the IPO and the subsequent period between December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, during which BHH LLC held equity investments in C3 AI. The action seeks unspecified damages and the award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these proceedings. 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. 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. We also provide a guarantee to GE Capital on behalf of a customer who entered into a financing arrangement with GE Capital. Total off-balance sheet arrangements were approximately $4.7 billion at March 31, 2023. It is not practicable to estimate the fair value of these financial instruments. As of March 31, 2023, 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. We sometimes enter into consortium or similar arrangements for certain projects primarily in our OFSE segment. Under such arrangements, each party is responsible for performing a certain scope of work within the total scope of the contracted work, and the obligations expire when all contractual obligations are completed. The failure or inability, financially or otherwise, of any of the parties to perform their obligations could impose additional costs and obligations on us. These factors could result in unanticipated costs to complete the project, liquidated damages or contract disputes.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration