| Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES LITIGATION We are subject to a number of lawsuits and claims arising out of the conduct of our business. The ability to predict the ultimate outcome of such matters involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties. We record a liability for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, including accruals for self-insured losses which are calculated based on historical claim data, specific loss development factors and other information. A range of total possible losses for all litigation matters cannot be reasonably estimated. Based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, we do not expect the ultimate outcome of currently pending lawsuits or claims against us, other than those discussed below, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, however, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these matters. With respect to the litigation matters below, if there was an adverse outcome individually or collectively, there could be a material impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations expected for the year. These litigation matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management's view of these matters may change in the future. Therefore, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these matters. During 2014, we received notification from a customer related to a possible equipment failure in a natural gas storage system in Northern Germany, which includes certain of our products. The customer initiated arbitral proceedings against us on June 19, 2015, under the rules of the German Institute of Arbitration e.V. (DIS). On August 3, 2016, the customer amended its claims and alleged damages of €202 million plus interest at an annual rate of prime + 5% . Hearings before the arbitration panel were held January 16, 2017 through January 23, 2017, and March 20, 2017 through March 21, 2017. In addition, on September 21, 2015, TRIUVA Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division against the Company and Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. alleging that the plaintiff is the owner of gas storage caverns in Etzel, Germany in which the Company provided certain equipment in connection with the development of the gas storage caverns. The plaintiff further alleges that the Company supplied equipment that was either defectively designed or failed to warn of risks that the equipment posed, and that these alleged defects caused damage to the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff seeks recovery of alleged compensatory and punitive damages of an unspecified amount, in addition to reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The allegations in this lawsuit are related to the claims made in the June 19, 2015 German arbitration referenced above. On June 7, 2018, the DIS arbitration panel issued a confidential Arbitration Ruling which addressed all claims asserted by the customer. The estimated financial impact of the Arbitration Ruling has been reflected in the Company's financial statements and did not have a material impact. Further, on March 11, 2019, the customer initiated a second arbitral proceeding against us, under the rules of the German Institute of Arbitration e.V. (DIS). The customer alleged damages of €142 million plus interest at an annual rate of prime + 5% since June 20, 2015. The allegations in this second arbitration proceeding are related to the claims made in the June 19, 2015 German arbitration and Houston Federal Court proceedings referenced above. The Company is vigorously contesting the claims made by TRIUVA in the Houston Federal Court and the claims made by the customer in the 2019 arbitration proceeding. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of the claims asserted in the Houston Federal Court or the 2019 arbitration proceeding. On July 31, 2015, Rapid Completions LLC filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas against Baker Hughes Incorporated, Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., and others claiming infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,907,936; 7,134,505; 7,543,634; 7,861,774; and 8,657,009. On August 6, 2015, Rapid Completions amended its complaint to allege infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,074,451. On September 17, 2015, Rapid Completions and Packers Plus Energy Services Inc. sued Baker Hughes Canada Company in the Canada Federal Court on the related Canadian patent 2,412,072. On April 1, 2016, Rapid Completions removed U.S. Patent No. 6,907,936 from its claims in the lawsuit. On April 5, 2016, Rapid Completions filed a second lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas against Baker Hughes Incorporated, Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. and others claiming infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,303,501. These patents relate primarily to certain specific downhole completions equipment. The plaintiff has requested a permanent injunction against further alleged infringement, damages in an unspecified amount, supplemental and enhanced damages, and additional relief such as attorney's fees and costs. During August and September 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) agreed to institute an inter-partes review of U.S. Patent Nos 7,861,774; 7,134,505; 7,543,634; 6,907,936; 8,657,009; and 9,074,451. On August 29, 2017, the USPTO issued its final written decisions in the inter-partes reviews of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,657,009 and 9,074,451 finding that all claims of those patents were unpatentable. On August 31, 2017, the USPTO issued its final written decision in the inter-partes review of U.S. Patent 6,907,936 - the patent dropped from the lawsuit by the plaintiffs - finding that all claims of this patent were patentable. On October 27, 2017, Rapid Completions filed its notices of appeal of the USPTO’s final written decision in the inter-partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,657,009 and 9,074,451. On September 26, 2018, the USPTO issued its final written decision in the inter-partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,134,505 finding all of the challenged claims unpatentable. On September 27, 2018, the USPTO issued its final written decision in the inter-partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,543,634 finding all of the challenged claims unpatentable. Trial on the validity of asserted claims from Canada patent 2,412,072, was completed March 9, 2017. On December 7, 2017, the Canadian Court issued its judgment finding the patent claims asserted from Canada patent 2,412,072 against Baker Hughes Canada Company were invalid. On January 5, 2018, Rapid Completions filed its Notice of Appeal of the Canadian Court’s judgment of invalidity. On November 19, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s unpatentability findings with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,657,009 and 9,074,451. On November 26, 2018, Rapid Completions filed notices of appeal of the USPTO’s final written decisions in the inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent No. 7,134,505, and 7,543,634. On April 24, 2019, the Canadian Court of Appeals ruled against Rapid Completions and dismissed Rapid Completion’s appeal in Canada. On June 24, 2019, Rapid Completions filed an application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. On May 2, 2019, the USPTO issued a final written decision in an IPR on US Patent Number 9,303,501 finding all of its claims unpatentable, and Rapid Completions appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit on July 5, 2019. The remaining appeals of the USPTO decisions finding Rapid Completion’s U.S. Patent claims unpatentable are still pending and, at this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims. In January 2013, INEOS and Naphtachimie initiated expertise proceedings in Aix-en-Provence, France arising out of a fire at a chemical plant owned by INEOS in Lavera, France, which resulted in a 15-day plant shutdown and destruction of a steam turbine, which was part of a compressor train owned by Naphtachimie. The most recent quantification of the alleged damages is €250 million . Two of the Company's subsidiaries (and 17 other companies) were notified to participate in the proceedings. The proceedings are ongoing, and at this time, there is no indication that the Company's subsidiaries were involved in the incident. Although the outcome of the claims remains uncertain, our insurer has accepted coverage and is defending the Company in the expertise proceeding. In late November 2017, staff of the Boston office of the SEC notified GE that they are conducting an investigation of GE’s revenue recognition practices and internal controls over financial reporting related to long-term service agreements. The scope of the SEC’s request may include some Baker Hughes contracts, expected to be mainly in our TPS business. We have provided documents to GE and are cooperating with them in their response to the SEC. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of this review. On July 31, 2018, International Engineering & Construction S.A. (IEC) initiated arbitration proceedings in New York administered by the International Center for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) against the Company and its subsidiaries arising out of a series of sales and service contracts entered between IEC and the Company’s subsidiaries for the sale and installation of LNG plants and related power generation equipment in Nigeria (Contracts). Prior to the filing of the IEC Arbitration, the Company’s subsidiaries made demands for payment due under the Contracts. On August 15, 2018, the Company’s subsidiaries initiated a separate demand for ICDR arbitration against IEC for claims of additional costs and amounts due under the Contracts. On October 10, 2018, IEC filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company seeking to compel non-signatory Baker Hughes entities to participate in the arbitration filed by IEC. The complaint is captioned International Engineering & Construction S.A. et al. v. Baker Hughes, a GE Company LLC, et al. No. 18-cv-09241 (S.D.N.Y 2018); this action was dismissed by the Court on August 13, 2019. In the arbitration, IEC alleges breach of contract and other claims against the Company and its subsidiaries and seeks recovery of alleged compensatory damages, in addition to reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and arbitration costs. On March 15, 2019, IEC amended its request for arbitration to alleged damages of $591 million of lost profits plus unspecified additional costs based on alleged non-performance of the contracts in dispute. The arbitration hearing is currently scheduled to commence on December 9, 2019. The Company and its subsidiaries have vigorously contested IEC’s claims and are pursuing claims for compensation under the contracts. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims. On March 15, 2019 and March 18, 2019, the City of Riviera Beach Pension Fund and Richard Schippnick, respectively, filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery shareholder derivative lawsuits for and on the Company’s behalf against GE, the current members of the Board of Directors of the Company and the Company as a nominal defendant, related to the decision to (i) terminate the contractual prohibition barring GE from selling any of the Company’s shares before July 3, 2019; (ii) repurchase $1.5 billion in the Company’s stock from GE; (iii) permit GE to sell approximately $2.5 billion in the Company’s stock through a secondary offering; and (iv) enter into a series of other agreements and amendments that will govern the ongoing relationship between the Company and GE (collectively, the “2018 Transactions”). The complaints in both lawsuits allege, among other things, that GE, as the Company’s controlling stockholder, and the members of the Company’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the 2018 Transactions. The relief sought in the complaints includes a request for a declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, that GE was unjustly enriched, disgorgement of profits, an award of damages sustained by the Company, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 21, 2019, the Chancery Court entered an order consolidating the Schippnick and City of Riviera Beach complaints under consolidated C.A. No. 2019-0201-AGB, styled in re Baker Hughes, a GE company derivative litigation. On May 10, 2019, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the members of the Company’s Conflicts Committee, and on May 15, 2019, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against former Baker Hughes director Martin Craighead. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims. In March 2019, the Company received a document request from the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) related to certain of the Company’s operations in Iraq and its dealings with Unaoil Limited and its affiliates. The Company is cooperating with the DOJ in connection with this request and any related matters. In addition, the Company has agreed to toll any statute of limitations in connection with the matters subject to the DOJ’s document request until December 2019. On May 7, 2019, the Alaska District Attorney filed a Criminal Information against Baker Hughes Incorporated, Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., Baker Petrolite Corporation and a Baker Hughes employee alleging that individuals working at a Baker Petrolite Corporation chemical transfer facility in Kenai, Alaska were exposed to hazardous air emissions. The Criminal Information charges six counts of Assault in the Third Degree, three counts of Assault in the Fourth Degree and Negligent Air Emissions. On July 22, 2019, the six counts of Assault in the Third Degree were dismissed, with the Alaska Attorney General’s office indicating their intent to present those charges to the grand jury to obtain an indictment. On or around September 11, 2019, the grand jury issued an indictment on 25 counts, including 10 counts of Assault in the First Degree, 10 counts of Assault in the Second Degree, and 5 counts of Assault in the Third Degree. The Company and other Defendants have pled not guilty and intend to vigorously defend the charges. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of the criminal proceeding. On August 13, 2019, Tri-State Joint Fund filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on the behalf of itself and all similarly situated public stockholders of Baker Hughes Incorporated (“BHI”) against the General Electric Company, the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, and certain former BHI Officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and other claims in connection with the Transactions. On October 28, 2019, City of Providence filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on behalf of itself and all similarly situated public shareholders of BHI against GE, the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, and certain former BHI Officers alleging substantially the same claims in connection with the Transactions. The relief sought in these complaints include a request for a declaration that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, an award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims. We insure against risks arising from our business to the extent deemed prudent by our management and to the extent insurance is available, but no assurance can be given that the nature and amount of that insurance will be sufficient to fully indemnify us against liabilities arising out of pending or future legal proceedings or other claims. Most of our insurance policies contain deductibles or self-insured retentions in amounts we deem prudent and for which we are responsible for payment. In determining the amount of self-insurance, it is our policy to self-insure those losses that are predictable, measurable and recurring in nature, such as claims for automobile liability, general liability and workers compensation. PRODUCT WARRANTIES We provide for estimated product warranty expenses when we sell the related products. Because warranty estimates are forecasts that are based on the best available information, primarily historical claims experience, claims costs may differ from amounts provided. An analysis of changes in the liability for product warranties are as follows: 2019 2018 Balance at January 1 $ 236 $ 164 Provisions 6 26 Expenditures (12 ) (83 ) Other (1) (8 ) 128 Balance at September 30 $ 222 $ 235 (1) 2018 amount is primarily related to the acquisition of BHI. OTHER In the normal course of business with customers, vendors and others, we have entered into off-balance sheet arrangements, such as surety bonds for performance, letters of credit and other bank issued guarantees, which totaled approximately $4.0 billion at September 30, 2019 . It is not practicable to estimate the fair value of these financial instruments. None of the off-balance sheet arrangements either has, or is likely to have, a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We sometimes enter into consortium or similar arrangements for certain projects primarily in our Oilfield Equipment segment. Under such arrangements, each party is responsible for performing a certain scope of work within the total scope of the contracted work, and the obligations expire when all contractual obligations are completed. These arrangements may subject us to liability outside our scope, and the failure or inability, financially or otherwise, of any of the parties to perform their obligations could impose additional cost and obligations on us. These factors could result in unanticipated costs to complete the project, liquidated damages or contract disputes. |
