| Contingencies | Note 11—Contingencies
Macondo well incident contingencies
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 off the coast of Louisiana. At the time of the explosion, Deepwater Horizon was contracted to an affiliate of BP plc (together with its affiliates, “BP”). Following the incident, we have been subject to civil and criminal claims, as well as causes of action, fines and penalties by local, state and federal governments. 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, the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas (collectively, the “States”) and the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (the “PSC”).
In the nine months ended September 30, 2015, in connection with settlements, as further described below, 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 were either settled or otherwise resolved as a result of settlements with BP and the PSC.
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, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the liability for estimated loss contingencies that we believe are probable and for which a reasonable estimate can be made was $250 million, recorded in other current liabilities. The remaining litigation could result in certain loss contingencies that we believe are reasonably possible. Although we have not recognized a liability for such loss contingencies, these contingencies could result in liabilities that we ultimately recognize.
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 have received from underwriters’ confirmation of expected payment. 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.
Plea Agreement —Pursuant to the plea agreement (the “Plea Agreement”), one of our subsidiaries pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of negligently discharging oil into the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, in violation of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and agreed to be subject to probation through February 2018. The DOJ agreed, subject to the provisions of the Plea Agreement, not to further prosecute us for certain matters arising from the Macondo well incident. We also agreed to make an aggregate cash payment of $ 400 million, including a criminal fine of $100 million and cash contributions of $150 million to the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation and $150 million to the National Academy of Sciences, payable in scheduled installments. In each of the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, we made an aggregate cash payment of $60 million in satisfaction of amounts due under the Plea Agreement. At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the carrying amount of our liability for settlement obligations under the Plea Agreement was $60 million and $120 million, respectively.
Consent Decree —Under the civil consent decree (the “Consent Decree”), we agreed to undertake certain actions, including enhanced safety and compliance actions when operating in U.S. waters. The Consent Decree also requires us to submit certain plans, reports and submissions and also requires us to make such submittals available publicly. One of the required plans is a performance plan (the “Performance Plan”) that contains, among other things, interim milestones for actions in specified areas and schedules for reports required under the Consent Decree. On January 2, 2014, the DOJ approved our proposed Performance Plan. Additionally, in compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree and upon approval by the DOJ, we have retained an independent auditor to review and report to the DOJ our compliance with the Consent Decree and an independent process safety consultant to review report and assist with the process safety requirements of the Consent Decree. We may request termination of the Consent Decree after January 2, 2019, provided we meet certain conditions set forth in the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree resolved the claim by the U.S. for civil penalties under the CWA. The Consent Decree did not resolve the U.S. 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 (see “—BP Settlement Agreement”).
EPA Agreement —On February 25, 2013, we and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) entered into an agreement (the “EPA Agreement”), which has a five‑year term. Subject to our compliance with the terms of the EPA Agreement, the EPA agreed that it will not suspend, debar or statutorily disqualify us and will lift any existing suspension, debarment or statutory disqualification. In the EPA Agreement, we agreed to comply with our obligations under the Plea Agreement and the Consent Decree and continue the implementation of certain programs and systems designed to enhance our environmental management systems and improve our environmental performance. We also agreed to other specified actions, including the (i) scheduled revision of our environmental management system and maintenance of certain compliance and ethics programs; (ii) compliance with certain employment and contracting procedures; (iii) engagement of an independent compliance auditor to, among other things, assess and report to the EPA on our compliance with the terms of the Plea Agreement, the Consent Decree and the EPA Agreement and (iv) provision of reports and notices with respect to various matters, including those related to compliance, misconduct, legal proceedings, audit reports, the EPA Agreement, the Consent Decree and the Plea Agreement. The EPA Agreement prohibits us from entering into, extending or engaging in certain business relationships with individuals or entities that are debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment or similarly restricted.
BP Settlement Agreement —On May 20, 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with BP (the “BP Settlement Agreement”). Under the BP Settlement Agreement, BP agreed to indemnify us for compensatory damages, including all NRD and all cleanup and removal costs for oil or pollutants originating from the Macondo well. BP also agreed to cease efforts to recover as an unlimited additional insured under our insurance policies and to be bound to the insurance reimbursement rulings related to the Macondo well incident. We agreed to 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. Additionally, we mutually agreed to release and withdraw all claims we have against each other arising from the Macondo well litigation and to refrain from making statements regarding gross negligence in the Macondo well incident. In July 2015, pursuant to the BP Settlement Agreements, we received $125 million from BP as partial reimbursement of the legal costs we incurred in connection with the Macondo well incident. We believe the BP Settlement Agreement resolved all Macondo well-related litigation between BP and us, and the indemnity BP 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.
PSC Settlement Agreement —On May 29, 2015, together with the PSC, we filed a settlement agreement (the “PSC Settlement Agreement”) with the MDL Court for approval. 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 (the “Assigned Claims Class”). A court‑appointed neutral representative established the allocation of the settlement payment to be 72.8 percent paid to the Punitive Damages Class and 27.2 percent paid to the Assigned Claims Class. 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 were given the opportunity to opt out of the PSC Settlement Agreement before September 23, 2016, and 36 claimants timely opted out, to pursue punitive damages claims against us. In June 2016 and August 2015, we made a cash deposit of $25 million and $212 million, respectively, into escrow accounts pending approval of the settlement by the MDL Court. At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the aggregate balance in escrow was $237 million and $212 million, respectively, recorded in other current assets.
Multidistrict litigation proceeding —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, upon court approval of such settlements, 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, such as costs associated with the containment and removal of oil, from 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 for oil or containment originating in the Macondo well through the BP Settlement Agreement (see “—BP Settlement Agreement”). In September 2014, the MDL Court ruled on the liability phase trial, and additional litigation and appeals continue. The Phase One ruling did not quantify damages or result in a final monetary judgment. However, as a result of our settlements, all appeals have been dismissed, thereby making the Phase One ruling final with respect to Transocean.
Pending claims —As of September 30, 2016, numerous complaints remain pending against us, along with other unaffiliated defendants in the MDL Court. We believe our settlement with the PSC, if approved by the MDL Court on November 10, 2016, will resolve many of these pending actions. As for any actions not resolved by these settlements, including any claims by individuals who opt‑out of the PSC Settlement Agreement and federal securities actions, we are vigorously defending those claims and pursuing any and all defenses available. See”—PSC Settlement Agreement” and “—Federal securities claims.”
Federal securities claims —On September 30, 2010, a proposed federal securities class action was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the action, a former shareholder of the acquired company alleged that the joint proxy statement related to our shareholder meeting in connection with the merger with the acquired company violated various securities laws and 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 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 (the “Second Circuit”), but on March 17, 2016, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on August 12, 2016.
State and other government claims —The majority of the state, local and non‑U.S. government claims initially filed against us have either been settled or dismissed. Claims filed by the Mexican federal government under the OPA and maritime law are pending review in the MDL Court.
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 if paid, will exhaust such coverage. This layer 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 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 September 30, 2016, 15 plaintiffs have claims pending in Mississippi and eight 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 have historically 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 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 insurance policies, rights and proceeds, including (i) certain policies subject to litigation and (ii) certain rights and proceeds held 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, 2016, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 280 lawsuits, some of which include multiple plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately 302 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, 2016, 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 condensed 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 472 million, equivalent to approximately $145 million, including interest and penalties, measured as of September 30, 2016, 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 condensed 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 613 million, equivalent to approximately $188 million, including interest and penalties, measured as of September 30, 2016, 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 40 million, equivalent to approximately $12 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. In May 2016, we lost the appeal at the administrative level. We intend to appeal this decision at the judicial level. 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 condensed 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 the proceedings 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.
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. Under a consent decree entered by the court, we and other PRPs agreed with 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 parties to the settlement entered into a participation agreement, under which we agreed to pay 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, which is now a part of the San Gabriel Valley, Area 3, Superfund site. We were also advised that one or more of our subsidiaries that formerly owned and operated the site would likely be named by the EPA as PRPs. The current property owner, an unrelated party, performed the required testing and detected no contaminants. 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 condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Letters of credit and surety bonds
At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we had outstanding letters of credit totaling $68 million and $153 million, respectively, issued under various committed and uncommitted credit lines provided by several banks to guarantee various contract bidding, performance activities and customs obligations. As is customary in the contract drilling business, we also have various surety bonds in place that secure customs obligations related to the importation of our rigs and certain performance and other obligations. At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we had outstanding surety bonds totaling $31 million and $30 million, respectively. |
