XML 18 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2020
Contingencies |
Commitments | Note 10—Contingencies 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. Most claims, both civil and criminal, brought 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 March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the remaining liability for estimated loss contingencies that we believe are probable and for which a reasonable estimate can be made was $124 million, 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”), which was approved by the MDL Court on February 15, 2017. 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. At March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the remaining cash balance in the escrow account was $125 million, recorded in restricted cash accounts and investments. 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 March 31, 2020, 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 condensed 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 March 31, 2020, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 201 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 condensed 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 condensed 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, and known potential legal claims that are likely to be asserted, to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of 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://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