| Commitments and Contingencies | Note 13—Commitments and Contingencies
Macondo well incident settlement obligations
Overview — 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. Eleven persons died in, and others were injured as a result of, the incident. At the time of the explosion, Deepwater Horizon was located approximately 41 miles off the coast of Louisiana in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 and was contracted to an affiliate of BP plc (together with its affiliates, “BP”). Litigation 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 the contingencies arising from the Macondo well incident has now been resolved as a result of settlements with the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), BP, and the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (the “PSC”).
U.S. Department of Justice settlement agreements — On January 3, 2013, we reached an agreement with the DOJ to resolve certain outstanding civil and potential criminal charges against us arising from the Macondo well incident. As part of this resolution, we agreed to a guilty plea (“Plea Agreement”) and a civil consent decree (“Consent Decree”) by which, among other things, we agreed to pay $1.4 billion in fines, recoveries and civil penalties, excluding interest, in scheduled installments through February 2017. In the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, we paid an aggregate installment of $264 million and $472 million, respectively, including interest, towards our obligations under the Plea Agreement and Consent Decree . At September 30, 2015, we had satisfied our financial obligations under the Consent Decree and had $120 million outstanding under the Plea Agreement. At December 31, 2014, our outstanding obligations under the Consent Decree and the Plea Agreement were $200 million and $180 million, respectively.
Macondo well incident contingencies
Overview —During the nine months ended September 30, 2015, in connection with the settlements, as further described below, we adjusted our assets and liabilities associated with contingencies resulting from the Macondo well incident. In the nine months ended September 30, 2015, we recognized income of $788 million ($735 million, or $2.02 per diluted share, net of tax) , recorded as a net reduction to operating and maintenance costs and expenses, including $538 million associated with recoveries from insurance for our previously incurred losses, $125 million associated with partial reimbursement from BP for our previously incurred legal costs, and $125 million associated with a net reduction to certain related contingent liabilities, primarily associated with contingencies that have either been settled or otherwise resolved as a result of settlements with BP and the PSC. We made such adjustments with corresponding entries to increase accounts receivable by $663 million and decrease other current liabilities by $125 million. In the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, we received cash proceeds of $218 million and $663 million, respectively, associated with reimbursement for or recoveries of previously incurred losses, including $125 million from BP and $538 million from insurance.
We have recognized a liability for the remaining estimated loss contingencies associated with litigation resulting from the Macondo well incident that we believe are probable and for which a reasonable estimate can be made. At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the liability for estimated loss contingencies that we believe are probable and for which a reasonable estimate can be made was $285 million and $426 million, respectively, recorded in other current liabilities. The liability for estimated loss contingencies at September 30, 2015, included, among others, the amount we have agreed to pay as a result of our settlement with the PSC (see “—PSC Settlement Agreement” below), which is subject to approval by the MDL Court. The remaining litigation could result in certain loss contingencies that we believe are either reasonably possible or probable but for which we do not believe a reasonable estimate can be made. Although we have not recognized a liability for such loss contingencies, these contingencies could result in liabilities that we ultimately recognize.
We believe the remaining most notable claims against us arising from the Macondo well incident are the potential settlement class opt-outs from the PSC Settlement Agreement. See Note 18 —Subsequent Events .
We recognize an asset associated with the portion of our estimated losses that we believe is probable of recovery from insurance and for which we had received from underwriters’ confirmation of expected payment. At December 31, 2014, the insurance recoverable asset was $10 million, recorded in other assets. Although we have available policy limits that could result in additional amounts recoverable from insurance, recovery of such additional amounts is not probable and we are not currently able to estimate such amounts (see “—Insurance coverage”). Our estimates involve a significant amount of judgment. As a result of new information or future developments, we may increase our estimated loss contingencies arising out of the Macondo well incident or reduce our estimated recoveries from insurance, and the resulting losses could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows .
The Consent Decree resolved the claim by the U.S. for civil penalties under the Clean Water Act. The Consent Decree did not resolve United States’ claim under the Oil Pollution Act (“OPA”) for natural resource damages (“NRD”) or for removal costs. However, BP has agreed to indemnify us for NRD and most removal costs as further discussed under “ — BP Settlement Agreement” and “ — Pending Claims” below.
BP Settlement Agreement — On May 20, 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with BP (the “BP Settlement Agreement”). We believe the BP Settlement Agreement resolves all Macondo well-related litigation between BP and us, and the indemnity BP has committed to provide will generally address claims by third parties, including claims for economic and property damages, economic loss and NRD. However, the indemnity obligations do not extend to fines, penalties, or punitive damages. The BP Settlement Agreement generally provides that:
·
BP agreed to pay and has paid us $125 million, as noted above, as partial reimbursement of the legal costs we have incurred in connection with the Macondo well incident;
·
BP will indemnify us for compensatory damages, including all natural resource damages and all cleanup and removal costs incurred before the date of the settlement and any future cleanup and removal costs for oil or pollutants originating from the Macondo well;
·
We will indemnify BP for personal and bodily injury claims of our employees and for any future costs for the cleanup or removal of pollutants stored on the Deepwater Horizon vessel;
·
BP will no longer attempt to recover as an “additional insured” under our excess liability insurance policies, and BP will be bound to the MDL Court’s and Texas Supreme Court’s insurance reimbursement rulings for the Macondo well litigation;
·
BP and we will each release and withdraw all claims we have against each other arising from the Macondo well litigation; and
·
Neither BP nor we will make statements asserting the other company’s conduct was grossly negligent in the Macondo well incident.
BP settlement with U.S. and States —On July 2, 2015, BP announced it had reached an agreement in principle to settle certain claims with the U.S.; the States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas (collectively, the “States”) and local governments in the Gulf region. Among other things, the announced agreement, if finalized and approved by the MDL Court, will resolve the claims of the U.S. and the States for NRD under OPA. In the BP Settlement Agreement, BP has agreed to indemnify us for all NRD claims, and in the July 2, 2015 agreement, which is still subject to completion, the DOJ and the states that are party to the agreement, have agreed to release any such claims against us. In light of these facts, we believe that our likelihood of loss resulting from any NRD claims is remote.
PSC Settlement Agreement — On May 29, 2015, together with the PSC, we filed a settlement agreement (the “PSC Settlement Agreement”) with the MDL Court finalizing the terms as initially agreed to by us and the PSC in a Term Sheet Agreement on May 20, 2015. The PSC Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the MDL Court. Through the PSC Settlement Agreement, we agreed to pay a total of $212 million, plus up to $25 million for partial reimbursement of attorneys’ fees, to be allocated between two classes of plaintiffs as follows: (1) private plaintiffs, businesses, and local governments who could have asserted punitive damages claims against us under general maritime law (the “Punitive Damages Class”); and (2) private plaintiffs who previously settled economic damages claims against BP and were assigned certain claims BP had made against us. A court-appointed neutral representative will allocate the payment between the two classes. In exchange for these payments, each of the classes agreed to release all respective claims it has against us. Members of the Punitive Damages Class may opt out of the PSC Settlement Agreement and continue to pursue punitive damages claims against us, but we may terminate the PSC Settlement Agreement if the number of opt outs exceeds the specified threshold amount. In August 2015, we made a cash deposit of $212 million into an escrow account pending approval of the settlement by the MDL Court. At September 30, 2015, the balance of the escrow account was $212 million, recorded in other current assets.
Multidistrict litigation proceeding — Most Macondo well-related claims against us have been resolved under various settlements. There are, however, still pending claims by potential opt-outs from the settlement with the PSC and a number of other parties. As of September 30, 2015, the MDL Court has completed two trials involving us, and additional litigation and appeals continue .
The Phase One trial in 2013 addressed fault for the Macondo blowout and resulting oil spill. The MDL Court’s September 2014 Phase One ruling concluded that BP was grossly negligent and reckless and 67 percent at fault for the blowout, explosion, and spill; that we were negligent and 30 percent at fault; and that Halliburton Company (“Halliburton”) was negligent and three percent at fault . The finding that we were negligent, but not grossly negligent, meant that, subject to a successful appeal, we would not be held liable for punitive damages and that BP was required to honor its contractual agreements to indemnify us for compensatory damages and release its claims against us. Our settlements with BP and the PSC finally resolve the indemnity and release issues (see “—BP Settlement Agreement” and “—PSC Settlement Agreement”) and largely eliminate our risk should these determinations be reversed through the appeal process . The MDL Court also concluded that we were an “operator” of the Macondo well for purposes of 33 U.S.C. § 2704(c)(3), a provision of OPA that permits government entities to recover removal costs by owners and operators of a facility or vessel that caused a discharge. The MDL Court, however, found that “Transocean’s liability to government entities for removal costs is ultimately shifted to BP by virtue of contractual indemnity,” and BP has agreed to indemnify removal costs through the BP Settlement Agreement (see “—BP Settlement Agreement”) .
The Phase One ruling did not quantify damages or result in a final monetary judgment. However, because it is a determination of liability under maritime law, the Phase One ruling is appealable, and we, along with BP, the PSC, Halliburton and the State of Alabama have each appealed or cross-appealed aspects of the ruling. These appeals have been stayed pending the finalization of BP’s settlement with the U.S. and the States. As a result of our settlements, we do not expect any party to challenge the ruling with respect to Transocean when the appeals resume, and we expect that any remaining issues in the appeal would be addressed to the other parties.
We can provide no assurances as to the outcome of these appeals, as to the timing of any further rulings, or that we will not enter into additional settlements as to some or all of the matters related to the Macondo well incident, including those to be determined at a trial, or the timing or terms of any such settlements.
Pending claims — As of September 30, 2015, approximately 1,398 actions or claims are pending against us, along with other unaffiliated defendants arising from individual complaints as well as putative class-action complaints that were filed in the federal and state courts in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida and other courts. These claims were originally filed in various state and federal courts, and most have been consolidated in the MDL Court. We believe our settlement with the PSC, if approved by the MDL Court, will resolve many of these pending actions. As for any actions not resolved by these settlements, including any remaining personal injury claims, any claims by individuals who opt-out of the PSC Settlement Agreement, claims by State governments, claims by private environmental groups, and securities actions, we are vigorously defending those claims and pursuing any and all defenses available.
Wrongful death and personal injury claims — As of September 30, 2015, all personal injury claims have been settled.
State and other government claims —Claims have been filed against us by o ver 200 state, local and foreign governments, including the States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas; the Mexican States of Veracruz, Quintana Roo, Tamaulipas and Yucatan; the federal government of Mexico and other local governments by and on behalf of multiple towns and parishes. See Note 18 —Subsequent Events.
The remaining government claims include claims under OPA for economic damages, natural resource damages and removal costs. As noted above, BP has agreed to indemnify us for these damages (see “— Macondo well incident settlement obligations”). The OPA claims of the Mexican States of Veracruz, Quintana Roo, Tamaulipas and Yucatan were dismissed for failure to demonstrate that recovery under OPA was authorized by treaty or executive agreement. The MDL Court subsequently granted summary judgment and the Fifth Circuit upheld the decision on the Mexican States’ general maritime law claims on the ground that the federal government of Mexico, rather than the Mexican States, had the proprietary interest in the claims. The Mexican States have sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not yet acted on the petition.
Citizen suits under environmental statutes —The Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”), a private environmental group, sued BP and us under multiple federal environmental statutes seeking monetary penalties and injunctive relief. The MDL Court dismissed all of the claims, and in January 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with one exception: the Fifth Circuit remanded to the MDL Court the Center’s claim for injunctive relief, but not for penalties, based on BP and our alleged failure to make certain reports about the constituents of oil spilled into the U.S. Gulf of Mexico as required by the Emergency Planning and Community Right—to—Know Act of 1986. In September 2015, the MDL Court granted summary judgment in favor of us and BP on the one remaining claim.
Federal securities claims —On September 30, 2010, a proposed federal securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming us, former chief executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and one of our acquired companies as defendants. In the action, a former shareholder of the acquired company alleged that the joint proxy statement relating to our shareholder meeting in connection with the merger with the acquired company violated Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff claimed that the acquired company’s shareholders received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory damages and attorneys’ fees on behalf of the plaintiff and the proposed class members. In connection with this action, we are obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual defendants, which may be covered by our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, subject to a deductible. On March 11, 2014, the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the claims as time-barred. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which heard oral argument on August 18, 2015. The court has not yet issued a ruling.
Wreck removal —By letter dated December 6, 2010, the U.S. Coast Guard requested that we formulate and submit a comprehensive oil removal plan to remove any diesel fuel that can be recovered from Deepwater Horizon. We have conducted a survey of the rig wreckage and have confirmed that no diesel fuel remains on the rig. The U.S. Coast Guard has not requested that we remove the rig wreckage from the sea floor. In February 2013, the U.S. Coast Guard submitted a request seeking analysis and recommendations as to the potential life of the rig’s riser and cofferdam, which are resting on the seafloor, and potential remediation or removal options. We have insurance coverage for wreck removal for up to 25 percent of Deepwater Horizon ’s insured value, or $140 million, with any excess wreck removal liability generally covered to the extent of our remaining excess liability limits. Under the BP Settlement Agreement, we have agreed to indemnify BP for any costs associated with wreck removal.
Insurance coverage —At the time of the Macondo well incident, our excess liability insurance program offered aggregate insurance coverage of $950 million, excluding a $15 million deductible and a $50 million self-insured layer through our wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary. This excess liability insurance coverage consisted of a first and a second layer of $150 million each, a third and fourth layer of $200 million each and a fifth layer of $250 million. We have recovered costs under the first four excess layers, the limits of which are now fully exhausted. We have submitted claims to the $250 million fifth layer, which is comprised of Bermuda market insurers (the “Bermuda Insurers”). The Bermuda Insurers have asserted various coverage defenses to our claims and we have issued arbitration notices to the Bermuda Insurers.
Other legal proceedings
Asbestos litigation —In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21 complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during these plaintiffs’ employment in drilling activities between 1965 and 1986. The complaints generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with drilling operations and have included allegations of negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. In each of these cases, the complaints have named other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured the drilling - related products that contained asbestos. 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. After ten years of litigation, this group of cases has been winnowed to the point where now only 15 plaintiffs’ individual claims remain pending in Mississippi in which we have or may have an interest.
During the year ended December 31, 2014, a group of lawsuits premised on the same allegations as those in Mississippi were filed in Louisiana. As of September 30, 2015, eight plaintiffs have claims pending against one or more of our subsidiaries in four different lawsuits filed in Louisiana . 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 was involved in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary’s involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations were discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its litigation, with its insurers and, either directly or indirectly through a qualified settlement fund. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of September 30, 2015, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 247 lawsuits, some of which include multiple plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately 286 plaintiffs in these lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided with 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 first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against the subsidiary in 1990. Through September 30, 2015, the costs incurred to resolve claims, including both defense fees and expenses and settlement costs, have not been material, all known deductibles have been satisfied or are inapplicable, and the subsidiary’s defense fees and expenses and settlement costs have been met by insurance made available to the subsidiary. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional lawsuits, and we cannot predict the number of additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can we predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to resolve the pending cases. However, the subsidiary has in excess of $1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the subsidiary. Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary will have sufficient funding directly or indirectly from settlements and claims payments from insurers, assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with insurers to respond to these claims. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not believe that the ultimate liability, if any, arising from these claims will have a material impact on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Rio de Janeiro tax assessment —In the third quarter of 2006, we received tax assessments of BRL 443 million, equivalent to approximately $112 million, including interest and penalties, from the state tax authorities of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil against one of our Brazilian subsidiaries for taxes on equipment imported into the state in connection with our operations. The assessments resulted from a preliminary finding by these authorities that our record keeping practices were deficient. We currently believe that the substantial majority of these assessments are without merit. We filed an initial response with the Rio de Janeiro tax authorities on September 9, 2006 refuting these additional tax assessments. In September 2007, we received confirmation from the state tax authorities that they believe the additional tax assessments are valid, and as a result, we filed an appeal on September 27, 2007 to the state Taxpayer’s Council contesting these assessments. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the final outcome of these proceedings, we do not expect it to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Brazilian import license assessment —In the fourth quarter of 2010, we received an assessment from the Brazilian federal tax authorities in Rio de Janeiro of BRL 563 million, equivalent to approximately $143 million, including interest and penalties, based upon the alleged failure to timely apply for import licenses for certain equipment and for allegedly providing improper information on import license applications. We believe that a substantial majority of the assessment is without merit and are vigorously pursuing legal remedies. The case was decided partially in favor of our Brazilian subsidiary in the lower administrative court level. The decision cancelled the majority of the assessment, reducing the total assessment to BRL 37 million, equivalent to approximately $9 million. On July 14, 2011, we filed an appeal to eliminate the assessment. On May 23, 2013, a ruling was issued that eliminated all assessment amounts. A further appeal by the taxing authorities was filed in November 2014 and accepted for review in April 2015. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these proceedings, we do not expect it to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
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, 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. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these proceedings, we do not expect it 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. Such matters include a certain claim asserted by Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. that it will seek to recover from its contractors, including us, any taxes, penalties, interest and fees, if any, that it must pay to the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service for withholding taxes related to its charter agreements with its contractors. 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.
Other environmental matters
Hazardous waste disposal sites —We have certain potential liabilities under the Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and similar state acts regulating cleanup of various hazardous 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. Liability is strict and can be joint and several.
We have been 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 have agreed with the Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) and the DOJ to settle our potential liabilities for this site by agreeing to perform the remaining remediation required by the EPA. The form of the agreement is a consent decree, which has been entered by the court. The parties to the settlement have entered into a participation agreement, which makes us liable for approximately eight percent of the remediation and related costs. The remediation is complete, and we believe our share of the future operation and maintenance costs of the site is not material. There are additional potential liabilities related to the site, but these cannot be quantified, and we have no reason at this time to believe that they will be material.
One of our subsidiaries has been ordered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (“CRWQCB”) to develop a testing plan for a site known as Campus 1000 Fremont in Alhambra, California. This site was formerly owned and operated by certain of our subsidiaries. It is presently owned by an unrelated party, which has received an order to test the property. We have also been advised that one or more of our subsidiaries is likely to be named by the EPA as a PRP for the San Gabriel Valley, Area 3, Superfund site, which includes this property. Testing has been completed at the property, but no contaminants of concern were detected. In discussions with CRWQCB staff, we were advised of their intent to issue us a “no further action” letter, but it has not yet been received. Based on the test results, we would contest any potential liability. We have no knowledge at this time of the potential cost of any remediation, who else will be named as PRPs, and whether in fact any of our subsidiaries is a responsible party. The subsidiaries in question do not own any operating assets and have limited ability to respond to any liabilities.
Resolutions of other claims by the EPA, the involved state agency or PRPs are at various stages of investigation. These investigations involve determinations of (a) the actual responsibility attributed to us and the other PRPs at the site, (b) appropriate investigatory or remedial actions and (c) allocation of the costs of such activities among the PRPs and other site users. Our ultimate financial responsibility in connection with those sites may depend on many factors, including (i) the volume and nature of material, if any, contributed to the site for which we are responsible, (ii) the number of other PRPs and their financial viability and (iii) the remediation methods and technology to be used.
It is difficult to quantify with certainty the potential cost of these environmental matters, particularly in respect of remediation obligations. Nevertheless, based upon the information currently available, we believe that our ultimate liability arising from all environmental matters, including the liability for all other related pending legal proceedings, asserted legal claims and known potential legal claims which are likely to be asserted, is adequately accrued and should not have a material effect on our consolidated statement of financial position or results of operations.
Retained risk
Overview —Our hull and machinery and excess liability insurance program is comprised of |
