XML 81 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Note 15—Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase and service agreement obligations

We have purchase obligations with shipyards and other contractors related to our newbuild construction programs. We also have long-term service agreements with original equipment manufacturers to provide services and parts, primarily related to our pressure control systems. The future payments required under our service agreements were estimated based on our projected operating activity and may vary subject to actual operating activity. At December 31, 2019, the aggregate future payments required under our purchase obligations and our service agreement obligations were as follows (in millions):


			Service
	Purchase		agreement
	obligations		obligations
Years ending December 31,
2020	$	1,067	$	110
2021		49		117
2022		—		120
2023		—		124
2024		—		129
Thereafter		—		435
Total	$	1,116	$	1,035

Letters of credit and surety bonds

At December 31, 2019 and 2018, we had outstanding letters of credit totaling $19 million and $31 million, respectively, issued under various committed and uncommitted credit lines provided by banks to guarantee various contract bidding, performance activities and customs obligations. At December 31, 2019 and 2018, we also had outstanding surety bonds totaling $113 million and $84 million, respectively, to secure customs obligations related to the importation of our rigs and certain performance and other obligations. At December 31, 2019 and 2018, the aggregate cash collateral held by institutions to secure our letters of credit and surety bonds was $10 million and $5 million, respectively.

Legal proceedings

Macondo well incident—On April 22, 2010, the ultra-deepwater floater Deepwater Horizon sank after a blowout of the Macondo well caused a fire and explosion on the rig off the coast of Louisiana. At the time of the explosion, Deepwater Horizon was contracted to an affiliate of BP plc. Litigation, including civil and criminal claims, commenced shortly after the incident, and most claims against us were consolidated by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “MDL Court”), a significant portion of which has now been resolved or is pending release of funds from escrow. We will vigorously defend against any actions not resolved by our previous settlements and pursue any and all defenses available.

At December 31, 2019 and 2018, the remaining liability for estimated loss contingencies that we believe are probable and for which a reasonable estimate can be made was $124 million and $158 million, respectively, recorded in other current liabilities, the majority of which is related to the settlement agreement that we and the Plaintiff Steering Committee filed with the MDL Court in May 2015 (the “PSC Settlement Agreement”). On February 15, 2017, the MDL Court entered a final order and judgment approving the PSC Settlement Agreement. Through the PSC Settlement Agreement, we agreed to pay a total of $212 million to be allocated between two classes of

plaintiffs in exchange for a release of all respective claims each class has against us. As required under the PSC Settlement Agreement, we deposited the settlement amount into an escrow account established by the MDL Court. In August 2019 and November 2018, the MDL Court released $33 million and $58 million, respectively, from the escrow account to make payments to the plaintiffs. At December 31, 2019 and 2018, the remaining cash balance in the escrow account was $125 million and $156 million, respectively, recorded in restricted cash accounts and investments.

Nigerian Cabotage Act litigation—In October 2007, three of our subsidiaries were each served a Notice and Demand from the Nigeria Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (“NIMASA”), imposing a two percent surcharge on the value of all contracts performed by us in Nigeria pursuant to the Coastal and Inland Shipping (Cabotage) Act 2003 (the “Cabotage Act”). Our subsidiaries each filed an originating summons in the Federal High Court in Lagos challenging the imposition of this surcharge on the basis that the Cabotage Act and associated levy is not applicable to drilling rigs. The respondents challenged the competence of the suits on several procedural grounds. The court upheld the objections and dismissed the suits. In December 2010, our subsidiaries filed a new joint Cabotage Act suit. In June 2019, the Court of Appeal of Nigeria ruled the suits had been properly dismissed, confirming that offshore drilling rigs are not subject to the surcharges of the Cabotage Act. NIMASA has not appealed this ruling, and the deadline for appeal has passed. While we cannot provide assurance that NIMASA will not attempt to challenge the ruling in the future, we do not expect the proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Asbestos litigation—In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi, and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were filed in Louisiana. The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants, generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages. At December 31, 2019, nine plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana, in which we have or may have an interest. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no assurance as to the outcome. We historically have maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

One of our subsidiaries has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary’s manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of December 31, 2019, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 185 lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989. In September 2018, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that leaves the subsidiary with funding, including cash, annuities and coverage in place settlement, that we believe will be sufficient to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar nature. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Other matters—We are involved in various tax matters, various regulatory matters, and a number of claims and lawsuits, asserted and unasserted, all of which have arisen in the ordinary course of our business. We do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these other matters to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We cannot predict with certainty the outcome or effect of any of the litigation matters specifically described above or of any such other pending, threatened, or possible litigation or liability. We can provide no assurance that our beliefs or expectations as to the outcome or effect of any tax, regulatory, lawsuit or other litigation matter will prove correct and the eventual outcome of these matters could materially differ from management’s current estimates.

Environmental matters

We have certain potential liabilities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and similar state acts regulating cleanup of hazardous substances at various waste disposal sites, including those described below. CERCLA is intended to expedite the remediation of hazardous substances without regard to fault. Potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) for each site include present and former owners and operators of, transporters to and generators of the substances at the site. It is difficult to quantify the potential cost of environmental matters and remediation obligations. Liability is strict and can be joint and several.

One of our subsidiaries was named as a PRP in connection with a site located in Santa Fe Springs, California, known as the Waste Disposal, Inc. site. We and other PRPs agreed, under a participation agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) and the U.S. Department of Justice, to settle our potential liabilities by remediating the site. The remedial action for the site was completed in 2006. Our share of the ongoing operating and maintenance costs has been insignificant, and we do not expect any additional potential liabilities to be material. Resolutions of other claims by the EPA, the involved state agency or PRPs are at various stages of investigation.

Nevertheless, based on available information, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from all environmental matters, including the liability for all related pending legal proceedings, asserted legal claims, the potential claims in Alhambra, California, for which tests detected no contaminants, and known potential legal claims that are likely to be asserted, to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.