|
Contingencies
|
3 Months Ended |
|---|---|
|
Mar. 31, 2015
|
|
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Contingencies |
Contingencies
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.
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 Securities and Exchange Commission (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.
On March 4, 2015 the Delaware Chancery Court ruled in the Company’s favor in Fuchs Family Trust v. Parker Drilling Company, Case No. 9986-VCN. The case centered on the plaintiff’s demand to inspect records related to the Company’s 2013 resolutions of investigations by the DOJ and the SEC into certain violations of the FCPA by Company employees. The plaintiff additionally sought costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The Court determined that plaintiff could not demand inspection of the company’s books and records and denied all other relief requested by the plaintiff.
|