Note 13 — Commitments and Contingencies

The Company has various lease agreements for office space, equipment, vehicles and personal property. These obligations extend through 2012 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, 2010, under operating leases with non-cancelable terms are as follows:

Total rent expense for all operating leases amounted to $12.1 million for 2011, $12.0 million for 2010 and $11.4 million for 2009.

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, 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 $250,000 per occurrence retention. We continue to assume straight $250,000 retention for workers’ compensation, employers’ liability, and 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, 2011 and 2010, our gross self-insurance accruals for workers’ compensation, employers’ liability, general liability, protection and indemnity and maritime employers’ liability totaled $6.6 million and $6.7 million, respectively and the related insurance recoveries/receivables were $1.9 million and $1.8 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, 2011, 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.

The 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, 2011.

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). The subsidiary 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 the 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 recently issued notice letters to several other parties who may also participate in funding the site remediation costs. As of December 31, 2011, the Company had made certain participating payments and had accrued $0.7 million for our portion of certain unreimbursed past costs and the estimated future cost of remediation.

Customs Agent and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Investigation

As previously disclosed, we received requests from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in July 2007 and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in January 2008 relating to our utilization of the services of a customs agent. The DOJ and the SEC are conducting parallel investigations into possible violations of U.S. law by us, including the FCPA. In particular, the DOJ and the SEC are investigating certain of our operations relating to countries in which we currently operate or formerly operated, including Kazakhstan and Nigeria. We are fully cooperating with the DOJ and SEC investigations and conducted an internal investigation into potential customs and other issues in Kazakhstan and Nigeria. The internal investigation has identified issues relating to potential non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including the FCPA, with respect to operations in Kazakhstan and Nigeria. At this point, we are unable to predict the duration, scope, or result of the DOJ or the SEC investigation or whether either agency will commence any legal action. We are currently in continuing discussions with the DOJ and SEC regarding a potential settlement, but no agreement has been reached with either agency. We cannot predict or estimate whether or when a resolution with each will occur, or the terms, conditions, or other parameters of any such resolution (including the size of any monetary penalties or disgorgement). Therefore, we have not made any accrual in our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2011, with respect to the investigations.

The DOJ and the SEC have a broad range of civil and criminal sanctions under the FCPA and other laws and regulations, which they may seek to impose against corporations and individuals in appropriate circumstances including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, disgorgement, fines, penalties and modifications to business practices and compliance programs. These authorities have entered into agreements with, and obtained a range of sanctions against, several public corporations and individuals arising from allegations of improper payments and deficiencies in books and records and internal controls, whereby civil and criminal penalties were imposed. Recent civil and criminal settlements have included multi-million dollar fines, deferred prosecution agreements, guilty pleas, and other sanctions, including the requirement that the relevant corporation retain a monitor to oversee its compliance with the FCPA. In addition, corporations may have to end or modify existing business relationships. Any of these remedial measures, if applicable to us, could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

We have taken certain steps to enhance our anti-bribery compliance efforts, including retaining a full-time Chief Compliance Officer who reports to the Chief Executive Officer and Audit Committee; adopting revised FCPA policies, procedures, and controls; increasing training and testing requirements; strengthening contractual provisions for our service providers that interface with foreign government officials; improving due diligence and continuing oversight procedures for the review and selection of such service providers; and implementing a compliance awareness improvement initiative that includes issuance of periodic anti-bribery compliance alerts.

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) Investigation.” 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. On August 25, 2010, Mr. Maresca filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against our current directors, select officers, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit, like the demand letter, alleged that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company related to the issues described above under “Customs Agent and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Investigation.” The lawsuit sought damages in an unspecified amount, along with various other forms of relief and an award of attorney fees, other costs, and expenses to the plaintiff. The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff in December 2010.

On June 3, 2010, Mohamed Kassamali, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a derivative action in the state court of Harris County, Texas against our current directors and the Company as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company related to the issues described above under “Customs Agent and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Investigation.” On June 22, 2010, the Fuchs Family Trust, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a substantially similar lawsuit in the state court of Harris County, Texas. On June 23, 2010, Kenneth Flacks, a purported stockholder of the Company, also filed a substantially similar lawsuit in the state court of Harris County, Texas. The lawsuits seek damages related to the alleged breaches of duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. The damages sought include both compensatory and exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, along with various other forms of relief and an award of attorney fees, other costs, and expenses to the plaintiffs. All defendants have retained counsel, and on October 15, 2010, the three cases pending in the state court of Harris County, Texas were consolidated under the Kassamali case number and restyled as In re Parker Drilling Derivative Litigation. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended petition on April 7, 2011. On May 23, 2011, defendants filed special exceptions to that petition, which were fully briefed as of August 8, 2011. On December 9, 2011, the Court granted a 90-day deferral of the action.

On August 31, 2010, Douglas Freuler, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against our current directors, select officers, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit was substantially similar to those filed in the state court of Harris County, Texas, and alleges breach of fiduciary duties to the Company related to the issues described above under “Customs Agent and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Investigation,” as well as abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The damages sought included both compensatory and exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, along with various other forms of relief and an award of attorney fees, other costs, and expenses to the plaintiffs. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint were granted on June 30, 2011, and plaintiff was given thirty days to replead. Mr. Freuler filed his second amended complaint on July 20, 2011, and defendants’ motions to dismiss this complaint were fully briefed as of November 18, 2011.

Economic Sanctions Compliance

We are subject to laws and regulations restricting our international operations, including activities involving restricted countries, organizations, entities and persons that have been identified as unlawful actors or that are subject to U.S. economic sanctions. Pursuant to an internal review, we have identified certain shipments of equipment and supplies that were routed through Iran as well as other activities, including drilling activities, which may have violated applicable U.S. laws and regulations. We have reviewed these shipments, transactions and drilling activities to determine whether the timing, nature and extent of such activities or other conduct may have given rise to violations of these laws and regulations, and we voluntarily disclosed the results of our review to the U.S. government. At this point, we are unable to predict whether the government will initiate an investigation or any proceedings against us or the ultimate outcome that may result from our voluntary disclosure. If U.S. enforcement authorities determine that we were not in compliance with export restrictions, U.S. economic sanctions or other laws and regulations that apply to our international operations, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties and other remedial measures, which could have an adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

Kazakhstan Ministry of Finance Tax Audit

On August 14, 2009, the Kazakhstan Branch (PKD Kazakhstan) of Parker Drilling’s subsidiary, Parker Drilling Company International Limited (PDCIL), received an Act of Tax Audit from the Ministry of Finance of Kazakhstan (MinFin) for the period January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007. PKD Kazakhstan was assessed additional taxes in the amount of KZT 1.45 billion (approximately USD $9.7 million) and associated interest in the amount of KZT 700 million (approximately USD $4.7 million). The amounts assessed relate to corporate income taxes and interest in connection with the disallowance of the head office’s management and administrative expenses, loan interest and state duties, as well as Value Added Taxes (VAT) and interest in connection with VAT offset on debts classified as doubtful by MinFin, and for property taxes and interest in connection with Barge Rig 257 as a result of MinFin applying a lower rate of depreciation.

On September 25, 2009, PKD Kazakhstan appealed the Act of Tax Audit with MinFin on the basis that PKD Kazakhstan was exercising its rights provided by the Convention between the Governments of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the United States of America on the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and Capital, as well as improper application of Kazakhstan Tax Code provisions.

On January 13, 2010, PKD Kazakhstan received a response from MinFin to the appeal filed September 25, 2009. MinFin agreed with PKD Kazakhstan to remove the assessment related to property taxes and interest in connection with Barge Rig 257 which reduced the overall assessment by KZT 741 million (approximately USD $5.0 million). The residual assessment of KZT 959 million (approximately USD $6.5 million) of taxes and KZT 450 million (approximately USD $3 million) of associated interest remains outstanding.

On March 1, 2010, PKD Kazakhstan filed a claim against the Tax Department, in the Special Inter-district Economic Court of Atyrau Oblast, seeking to invalidate the revised Tax Notification. On May 5, 2010, the court elected not to issue a ruling on the merits of the case on the basis of an alleged lack of standing. PKD Kazakhstan adjusted and re-filed its claim in June 2010. On August 17, 2010, the Special Inter-district Economic Court of Atyrau Oblast rendered a decision rejecting PKD Kazakhstan’s re-filed claim. PKD Kazakhstan filed on September 17, 2010 an appeal to the Atyrau Oblast Court. That appeal was heard by a single judge on October 27, 2010, at the conclusion of which the court announced its decision to let the lower court decision stand without amendment or cancellation.

On November 18, 2010, PKD Kazakhstan filed an appeal to a three-judge panel of the Atyrau Oblast Court. On December 9, 2010, the court announced its decision to uphold the lower court decision and allow the revised Tax Notification to stand. As a result of the decision on December 9, 2010, PKD Kazakhstan had an obligation to pay the residual assessment. The amount due related to the tax assessment and applicable interest was approximately $11.3 million, plus an administrative penalty of approximately $3.2 million arising from the same alleged underpayment of taxes. PKD Kazakhstan paid these amounts in full prior to December 31, 2010 to avoid enforcement actions and additional interest while we pursue further challenges.

PKD Kazakhstan continues to believe that it properly exercised its rights provided by the Convention and that MinFin improperly applied certain provisions of the Kazakhstan Tax Code. PKD Kazakhstan submitted a discretionary appeal to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and on October 13, 2011 the Supreme Court verbally announced its decision to not accept and consider the merits of the appeal. PKD Kazakhstan is considering its remaining available options for relief under Kazakhstan law and the Convention.