|
Contingencies
|
9 Months Ended |
|---|---|
|
Sep. 30, 2013
|
|
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Contingencies |
Contingencies
Asbestos-Related Claims
We are from time to time a party to various lawsuits in the ordinary course 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 September 30, 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 States of 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 September 30, 2013.
Gulfco Site
In 2003, we received an information request under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) designating Parker Drilling Offshore Corporation, a subsidiary of Parker Drilling, as a potentially responsible party with respect to the Gulfco Marine Maintenance, Inc. Superfund Site in Freeport, Texas (EPA No. TX 055144539). We responded to this request and in January 2008 received an administrative order to participate in an investigation of the site and a study of the remediation needs and alternatives. The EPA alleges that our subsidiary is a successor to a party who owned the Gulfco site during the time when chemical releases took place there. In December 2010, we entered into an agreement with two other potentially responsible parties, pursuant to which we agreed to pay 20 percent of past and future costs to study and remediate the site. The EPA also issued notice letters to several other parties who may also participate in funding the site remediation costs. On March 20, 2013 we received a Notice of Completion from the EPA confirming that all required activity for removal and remediation has been completed, except for ongoing monitoring costs. As of September 30, 2013, the Company had made certain participating payments and had accrued $0.9 million for our portion of certain unreimbursed past costs and the estimated future cost of monitoring.
Customs Agent and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Settlement
We previously announced we reached a settlement in connection with investigations by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding possible violations of U.S. law, including the FCPA, by us. On April 16, 2013, the Company and the 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 investigate the issues raised in the letter and recommend 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. As part of the integration process with respect to ITS, we have and will continue our review of ITS' activities to further identify potential violations of applicable international trade and anti-corruption laws and have and will continue to promptly apply our developed systems of internal controls, Code of Conduct, policies and procedures to the acquired businesses to help ensure prevention of potential future violations. As appropriate, we have and will 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 nor is a loss estimable at this time.
|