Asbestos-Related Claims

We are from time to time a party to various lawsuits in the ordinary course of business that are incidental to our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. At March 31, 2014, there were approximately 15 of these lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states of California, Illinois and Mississippi.

We intend to defend ourselves vigorously and, based on the information available to us at this time, we do not expect the outcome to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits. No amounts were accrued at March 31, 2014.

Customs Agent and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Settlement

On April 16, 2013, the Company and the Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), under which the DOJ will defer for three years prosecuting the Company for criminal violations of the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA relating to the Company’s retention and use of an individual agent in Nigeria with respect to certain customs-related issues, in return for: (i) the Company’s acceptance of responsibility for, and agreement not to contest or contradict the truthfulness of, the statement of facts and allegations that have been filed in a United States District Court concurrently with the DPA; (ii) the Company’s payment of an approximately $11.76 million fine; (iii) the Company’s reaffirming its commitment to compliance with the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws in connection with the Company’s operations, and continuing cooperation with domestic and foreign authorities in connection with the matters that are the subject of the DPA; (iv) the Company’s commitment to continue to address any identified areas for improvement in the Company’s internal controls, policies and procedures relating to compliance with the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws if, and to the extent, not already addressed; and (v) the Company’s agreement to report to the DOJ in writing annually during the term of the DPA regarding remediation of the matters that are the subject of the DPA, implementation of any enhanced internal controls, and any evidence of improper payments the Company may have discovered during the term of the agreement. If the Company remains in compliance with the terms of the DPA throughout its effective period, the charge against the Company will be dismissed with prejudice. The Company also settled a related civil complaint filed by the SEC in a United States District Court.

Demand Letter and Derivative Litigation

In April 2010, we received a demand letter from a law firm representing Ernest Maresca. The letter states that Mr. Maresca is one of our stockholders and that he believes that certain of our current and former officers and directors violated their fiduciary duties related to the issues described above under “Customs Agent and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Settlement.” The letter requests that our Board of Directors take action against the individuals in question. In response to this letter, the Board formed a special committee to evaluate the issues raised by the letter and determine a course of action for the Company. The special committee engaged its own counsel for the investigation and evaluated potential claims against all individuals identified in the demand letter. The special committee considered whether pursuing each of the individuals named in the demand letter was in the best interests of the Company based upon a variety of factors, including among others, whether the Company had a potential cause of action against the individual, the defenses the individual might offer to such a claim, the ability of the individual to satisfy any judgment the Company might secure as a result of a claim asserted, and other risks to the Company of pursuing the claims. After taking various factors into account, on July 29, 2013, the special committee recommended to the Board that the Company not pursue any action against the current and former officers and directors named in the demand letter, and the Board accepted such recommendation.

ITS Internal Controls

Our due diligence process with respect to the ITS Acquisition identified certain transactions that suggest that ITS’ pre-acquisition internal controls may have failed to prevent violations of potentially applicable international trade and anti-corruption laws, including those of the United Kingdom. We have investigated such violations and have and will, as appropriate, make any identified violations known to relevant authorities, cooperate with any resulting investigations and take proper remediation measures (including seeking any necessary government authorizations). While it is possible that matters may arise where a contingency may require further accounting considerations, we do not believe that as a result of these matters a loss is probable and estimable at this time.

Note 15 — Commitments and Contingencies

The Company has various lease agreements for office space, equipment, vehicles and personal property. These obligations extend through 2025 and are typically non-cancelable. Most leases contain renewal options and certain of the leases contain escalation clauses. Future minimum lease payments at December 31, 2013, under operating leases with non-cancelable terms are as follows:

Total rent expense for all operating leases amounted to $19.9 million for 2013, $11.8 million for 2012 and $12.1 million for 2011.

We are self-insured for certain losses relating to workers’ compensation, employers’ liability, general liability (for onshore liability), protection and indemnity (for offshore liability) and property damage. Our exposure (that is, the retention or deductible) per occurrence is $250,000 for worker’s compensation, employer’s liability, $500,000 general liability, protection and indemnity and maritime employers’ liability (Jones Act). In addition, we assume a $500,000 annual aggregate deductible for protection and indemnity and maritime employers’ liability claims. The annual aggregate deductible is reduced by every dollar that exceeds the $500,000 per occurrence retention. We also assume a retention for foreign casualty exposures of $100,000 for workers’ compensation, employers’ liability, and $1,000,000 for general liability losses and a $100,000 deductible for auto liability claims. For all primary insurances mentioned above, the Company has excess coverage for those claims that exceed the retention and annual aggregate deductible. We maintain actuarially-determined accruals in our consolidated balance sheets to cover the self-insurance retentions.

We have self-insured retentions for certain other losses relating to rig, equipment, property, business interruption and political, war, and terrorism risks which vary according to the type of rig and line of coverage. Political risk insurance is procured for international operations. However, this coverage may not adequately protect us against liability from all potential consequences.

As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, our gross self-insurance accruals for workers’ compensation, employers’ liability, general liability, protection and indemnity and maritime employers’ liability totaled $5.7 million and $4.7 million, respectively and the related insurance recoveries/receivables were $1.7 million and $1.2 million, respectively.

We have entered into employment agreements with terms of one to two years with certain members of management with automatic one year renewal periods at expiration dates. The agreements provide for, among other things, compensation, benefits and severance payments. The employment agreements also provide for lump sum compensation and benefits in the event of termination within two years following a change in control of the Company.

We are a party to various lawsuits and claims arising out of the ordinary course of business. We estimate the range of our liability related to pending litigation when we believe the amount or range of loss can be estimated. We record our best estimate of a loss when the loss is considered probable. When a liability is probable and there is a range of estimated loss with no best estimate in the range, we record the minimum estimated liability related to the lawsuits or claims. As additional information becomes available, we assess the potential liability related to our pending litigation and claims and revise our estimates. Due to uncertainties related to the resolution of lawsuits and claims, the ultimate outcome may differ significantly from our estimates. In the opinion of management and based on liability accruals provided, our ultimate exposure with respect to these pending lawsuits and claims is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or cash flows, although they could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations for a particular reporting period.

Asbestos-Related Claims

We are from time to time a party to various lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. At December 31, 2013, there were approximately 15 of these lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the State of Mississippi.

Our subsidiaries named in these asbestos-related lawsuits intend to defend themselves vigorously and, based on the information available to us at this time, we do not expect the outcome to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits. No amounts were accrued at December 31, 2013.

Customs Agent and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Settlement

On April 16, 2013, the Company and the Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), under which the DOJ will defer for three years prosecuting the Company for criminal violations of the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA relating to the Company’s retention and use of an individual agent in Nigeria with respect to certain customs-related issues, in return for: (i) the Company’s acceptance of responsibility for, and agreement not to contest or contradict the truthfulness of, the statement of facts and allegations that have been filed in a United States District Court concurrently with the DPA; (ii) the Company’s payment of an approximately $11.76 million fine; (iii) the Company’s reaffirming its commitment to compliance with the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws in connection with the Company’s operations, and continuing cooperation with domestic and foreign authorities in connection with the matters that are the subject of the DPA; (iv) the Company’s commitment to continue to address any identified areas for improvement in the Company’s internal controls, policies and procedures relating to compliance with the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws if, and to the extent, not already addressed; and (v) the Company’s agreement to report to the DOJ in writing annually during the term of the DPA regarding remediation of the matters that are the subject of the DPA, implementation of any enhanced internal controls, and any evidence of improper payments the Company may have discovered during the term of the agreement. If the Company remains in compliance with the terms of the DPA throughout its effective period, the charge against the Company will be dismissed with prejudice. The Company also settled a related civil complaint filed by the SEC in a United States District Court.

Demand Letter and Derivative Litigation

In April 2010, we received a demand letter from a law firm representing Ernest Maresca. The letter states that Mr. Maresca is one of our stockholders and that he believes that certain of our current and former officers and directors violated their fiduciary duties related to the issues described above under “Customs Agent and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Settlement.” The letter requests that our Board of Directors take action against the individuals in question. In response to this letter, the Board formed a special committee to evaluate the issues raised by the letter and determine a course of action for the Company. The special committee engaged its own counsel for the investigation and evaluated potential claims against all individuals identified in the demand letter. The special committee considered whether pursuing each of the individuals named in the demand letter was in the best interests of the Company based upon a variety of factors, including among others, whether the Company had a potential cause of action against the individual, the defenses the individual might offer to such a claim, the ability of the individual to satisfy any judgment the Company might secure as a result of a claim asserted, and other risks to the Company of pursuing the claims. After taking various factors into account, on July 29, 2013, the special committee recommended to the Board that the Company not pursue any action against the current and former officers and directors named in the demand letter, and the Board accepted such recommendation.

ITS Internal Controls

Our due diligence process with respect to the ITS Acquisition identified certain transactions that suggest that ITS’ internal controls may have failed to prevent violations of potentially applicable international trade and anti-corruption laws, including those of the United Kingdom. We have investigated such violations and have and will, as appropriate, make any identified violations known to relevant authorities, cooperate with any resulting investigations and take proper remediation measures (including seeking any necessary government authorizations). While it is possible that matters may arise where a contingency may require further accounting considerations, we do not believe that as a result of these matters a loss is probable and estimable at this time.