|
Contingencies
|
6 Months Ended |
|---|---|
|
Jun. 30, 2014
|
|
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Contingencies |
Contingencies
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.
On July 31, 2014, Fuchs Family Trust, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a complaint under Section 220 of the Delaware Code seeking to inspect the Company’s books and records. The action is styled Fuchs Family Trust v. Parker Drilling Company, Case No. 9986-VCN, and was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges that the inspection of records is intended to investigate purported corporate wrongdoing and mismanagement related to the Company’s 2013 resolutions of investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission into certain violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by Company employees. Plaintiff seeks to compel the records inspection and requests costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees in the event inspection is permitted.
ITS Pre-Acquisition 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.
|