XML 29 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

Contingencies and Commitments | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies and Commitments | Contingencies and Commitments We and certain of our subsidiaries are subject to litigation, claims and other commitments and contingencies arising in the ordinary course of business. Although the asserted value of these matters may be significant, we currently do not expect that the ultimate resolution of any open matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. Since May 2018, purported shareholders have filed various complaints against Fluor Corporation and certain of its current and former executives in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Fluor common stock from August 14, 2013 through February 14, 2020, and seek to recover damages arising from alleged violations of federal securities laws. These claims are based on statements concerning Fluor’s internal and disclosure controls, risk management, revenue recognition, and Fluor’s gas-fired power business, which plaintiffs assert were materially misleading. As of May 26, 2020, these complaints have been consolidated into one matter. We filed a motion to dismiss the matter on July 1, 2020. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is anticipated to occur in late 2020 or early 2021. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we do not believe it is probable that a loss will be incurred. Since September 2018, nine separate purported shareholders' derivative actions were filed against current and former members of the Board of Directors, as well as certain of Fluor’s current and former executives. Fluor Corporation is named as a nominal defendant in the actions. These derivative actions purport to assert claims on behalf of Fluor Corporation and make substantially the same factual allegations as the securities class action matter discussed above and seek various forms of monetary and injunctive relief. These actions are pending in Texas state court (District Court for Dallas County), the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Certain of these actions have been consolidated and stayed until our motion to dismiss is ruled upon in the securities class action matter. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we do not believe it is probable that a loss will be incurred. Fluor Australia Ltd., our wholly-owned subsidiary (“Fluor Australia”), completed a cost reimbursable engineering, procurement and construction management services project for Santos Ltd. (“Santos”) involving a large network of natural gas gathering and processing facilities in Queensland, Australia. On December 13, 2016, Santos filed an action in Queensland Supreme Court against Fluor Australia, asserting various causes of action and seeking damages and/or a refund of contract proceeds paid of approximately AUD $1.47 billion. Santos has joined Fluor Corporation to the matter on the basis of a parent company guarantee issued for the project. We believe that the claims asserted by Santos are without merit and we are vigorously defending these claims. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we do not believe it is probable that a loss will be incurred. Accordingly, we have not recorded a charge as a result of this action. Fluor Limited, our wholly-owned subsidiary (“Fluor Limited”), and Fluor Arabia Limited, a partially-owned subsidiary (“Fluor Arabia”), completed cost reimbursable engineering, procurement and construction management services for Sadara Chemical Company (“Sadara”) involving a large petrochemical facility in Jubail, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On August 23, 2019, Fluor Limited and Fluor Arabia Limited commenced arbitration proceedings against Sadara after it refused to pay invoices totaling approximately $100 million due under the parties’ agreements. As part of the arbitration proceedings, Sadara has asserted various counterclaims for damages and/or a refund of contract proceeds paid totaling approximately USD $574 million against Fluor Limited and Fluor Arabia Limited. We believe that the counterclaims asserted by Sadara are without merit and are vigorously defending these claims. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the counterclaims, we do not believe it is probable that a loss will be incurred. Accordingly, we have not recorded a charge as a result of the counterclaims. Various wholly-owned subsidiaries of Fluor, in conjunction with a partner, TECHINT, (“Fluor/TECHINT”) performed engineering, procurement and construction management services on a cost reimbursable basis for Barrick involving a gold mine and ore processing facility on a site straddling the border between Argentina and Chile. In 2013 Barrick terminated the Fluor/TECHINT agreements for convenience and not due to the performance of Fluor/TECHINT. On August 12, 2016, Barrick filed a notice of arbitration against Fluor/TECHINT, demanding damages and/or a refund of contract proceeds paid of not less than USD $250 million under various claims relating to Fluor/TECHINT’s alleged performance. Proceedings were suspended while the parties explored a possible settlement. In August 2019, Barrick drew down $35 million of letters of credit from Fluor/TECHINT ($23.5 million from Fluor and $11.5 million from TECHINT). Thereafter, Barrick proceeded to reactivate the arbitration. We believe that the claims asserted by Barrick are without merit and are vigorously defending these claims. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we do not believe it is probable that a loss will be incurred. Accordingly, we have not recorded a charge as a result of these claims. Purple Line Transit Partners, LLC (“PLTP”) entered into a Public Private Partnership Agreement (“PPPA”) with the Maryland Department of Transportation and the Maryland Transit Administration (together, the “State”) for the finance, design, construction, and operation of the Purple Line Project, a new light rail line in Maryland (the “Project”). PLTP is a limited liability company in which Fluor has a fifteen percent membership interest. PLTP entered into an Amended and Restated Design-Build Contract (the “DB Contract”) with Purple Line Transit Constructors, LLC (“PLTC”) as design-build contractor to perform PLTP’s design and construction obligations under the PPPA on a back-to-back basis. PLTC is a limited liability company in which Fluor has a fifty percent membership interest. The design and construction of the Project was significantly delayed by more than two and a half years due to events outside of PLTP or PLTC’s control. The PPPA contained a provision allowing PLTP the unconditional right to terminate the PPPA if certain events delayed the design and construction of the Project by 365 days or more. The DB Contract contained a similar provision allowing PLTC to terminate the DB Contract. Because of significant Project delays, in excess of 365 days, on May 1, 2020, PLTC gave notice to PLTP of PLTC’s intent to terminate the DB Contract. Upon receiving PLTC’s notice, on June 23, 2020, PLTP exercised its unconditional right to terminate the PPPA. The State has challenged PLTP’s termination of the PPPA and commenced a lawsuit in Maryland state court against PLTP alleging breach of the PPPA. We believe that PLTP and PLTC’s terminations of the PPPA and DB Contract, respectively, were justified and are vigorously defending against the State’s lawsuit. Other Matters We have made claims arising from the performance under our contracts. We recognize revenue for certain claims, including change orders in dispute and unapproved change orders in regard to both scope and price, when it is probable that a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognized will not occur. We estimate the amount of revenue to be recognized on claims using the expected value method (i.e., the sum of a probability-weighted amount) or the most likely amount method, whichever offers better prediction. Factors considered in determining whether revenue associated with claims should be recognized include the following: (a) the legal basis for the claim, (b) additional costs were caused by circumstances that were unforeseen at the contract date and not the result of deficiencies in our performance, (c) claim-related costs are identifiable and considered reasonable in view of the work performed, and (d) evidence supporting the claim is objective and verifiable. Similarly, we recognize disputed back charges to suppliers or subcontractors as a reduction of cost when the same requirements have been satisfied. We periodically evaluate our positions and the amounts recognized with respect to all of our claims and back charges. As of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, we had recorded $209 million and $198 million, respectively, of claim revenue for costs incurred to date. Additional costs, which will increase the claim revenue balance over time, are expected to be incurred in future periods. We had also recorded disputed back charges totaling $2 million as of both March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019. We believe the ultimate recovery of amounts related to these claims and back charges is probable in accordance with ASC 606. From time to time, we enter into significant contracts with the U.S. government and its agencies. Government contracts are subject to audits and investigations by government representatives with respect to our compliance with various restrictions and regulations applicable to government contractors, including but not limited to the allowability of costs incurred under reimbursable contracts. In connection with performing government contracts, we maintain reserves for estimated exposures associated with these matters. Our operations are subject to and affected by federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding the protection of the environment. We maintain reserves for potential future environmental cost where such obligations are either known or considered probable, and can be reasonably estimated. We believe, based upon present information available to us, that our reserves with respect to future environmental cost are adequate and such future cost will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. On February 18, 2020, we announced that the SEC is conducting an investigation and has requested documents and information related to projects for which we recorded charges in the second quarter of 2019. On April 30, 2020, the Corporation received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) seeking documents and information related to the second quarter 2019 charges; certain of the projects associated with those charges; and certain project accounting, financial reporting and governance matters. We are coordinating responses to the SEC and DOJ and cooperating in providing the requested documents and information, which efforts are ongoing.

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 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -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