Note 9 Commitments and Contingencies

Contingencies

Income Tax

We are subject to income taxes in the United States and numerous other jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining our worldwide provision for income taxes. In the ordinary course of our business, there are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. We are regularly audited by tax authorities. Although we believe our tax estimates are reasonable, the final determination of tax audits and any related litigation could be materially different than what is reflected in income tax provisions and accruals. An audit or litigation could materially affect our financial position, income tax provision, net income, or cash flows in the period or periods challenged.

It is possible that future changes to tax laws (including tax treaties) could impact our ability to realize the tax savings recorded to date as well as future tax savings, resulting from our 2002 corporate reorganization. See Note 14 — Income Taxes to our 2013 Annual Report for additional discussion.

In 2006, Nabors Drilling International Limited, one of our wholly owned Bermuda subsidiaries (“NDIL”), received a Notice of Assessment from Mexico’s federal tax authorities in connection with the audit of NDIL’s Mexico branch for 2003. The notice proposed to deny depreciation expense deductions relating to drilling rigs operating in Mexico in 2003. The notice also proposed to deny a deduction for payments made to an affiliated company for the procurement of labor services in Mexico. NDIL’s Mexico branch took similar deductions for depreciation and labor expenses from 2004 to 2008. In 2009, the government proposed similar assessments against the Mexico branch of another wholly owned Bermuda subsidiary, Nabors Drilling International II Ltd. (“NDIL II”) for 2006. We anticipate that a similar assessment will eventually be proposed against NDIL through 2008 and against NDIL II for 2007 to 2010. Although we previously concluded that the deductions were appropriate for each of the years, a reserve has been recorded in accordance with GAAP. During 2013, we reached a negotiated settlement for NDIL’s 2003, 2005 and 2006 tax years (the statute of limitations had previously expired on the 2004 tax year) and NDIL II’s 2006 tax year. Accordingly, the corresponding reserves were reduced by approximately $20 million during 2013. After this settlement, the remaining amounts assessed or expected to be assessed in the aggregate, range from $30 million to $35 million, for which reserves are recorded in accordance with GAAP. If we ultimately do not prevail, we would be required to recognize additional tax expense for any amount in excess of the current reserve.

Self-Insurance

We estimate the level of our liability related to insurance and record reserves for these amounts in our consolidated financial statements. Our estimates are based on the facts and circumstances specific to existing claims and our past experience with similar claims. These loss estimates and accruals recorded in our financial statements for claims have historically been reasonable in light of the actual amount of claims paid and are actuarially supported. Although we believe our insurance coverage and reserve estimates are reasonable, a significant accident or other event that is not fully covered by insurance or contractual indemnity could occur and could materially affect our financial position and results of operations for a particular period.

We self-insure for certain losses relating to workers’ compensation, employers’ liability, general liability, automobile liability and property damage. Effective April 1, 2014, some of our workers’ compensation claims, employers’ liability and marine employers’ liability claims are subject to a $3.0 million per-occurrence deductible; additionally, some of our automobile liability claims are subject to a $2.5 million deductible. General liability claims remain subject to a $5.0 million per-occurrence deductible.

In addition, we are subject to a $5.0 million deductible for land rigs and for offshore rigs. This applies to all kinds of risks of physical damage except for named windstorms in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico for which we are self-insured.

Litigation

Nabors and its subsidiaries are defendants or otherwise involved in a number of lawsuits in the ordinary course of business. We estimate the range of our liability related to pending litigation when we believe the amount and 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 from our estimates. For matters where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and significant, we disclose the nature of the matter and a range of potential exposure, unless an estimate cannot be made at the time of disclosure. 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.

In 2009, the Court of Ouargla entered a judgment of approximately $17.7 million (at current exchange rates) against us relating to alleged customs infractions in Algeria. We believe we did not receive proper notice of the judicial proceedings, and that the amount of the judgment was excessive in any case. We asserted the lack of legally required notice as a basis for challenging the judgment on appeal to the Algeria Supreme Court. In May 2012, that court reversed the lower court and remanded the case to the Ouargla Court of Appeals for treatment consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling. In January 2013, the Ouargla Court of Appeals reinstated the judgment. We have again lodged an appeal to the Algeria Supreme Court, asserting the same challenges as before. Based upon our understanding of applicable law and precedent, we continue to believe that we will prevail. Although the appeal remains ongoing at this time, the Hassi Messaoud customs office recently initiated efforts to collect the judgment prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case. As a result, we paid approximately $3.1 million and posted security of approximately $1.33 million to suspend those collection efforts and to enter into a formal negotiations process with the customs authority. We have recorded a reserve in the amount of the posted security. If we are ultimately required to pay a fine or judgment related to this matter, the resulting loss could be up to $13.3 million in excess of amounts accrued.

In 2011, the Court of Ouargla entered a judgment of approximately $34.8 million (at current exchange rates) against us relating to alleged violations of Algeria’s foreign currency exchange controls, which require that goods and services provided locally be invoiced and paid in local currency. The case relates to certain foreign currency payments made to us by CEPSA, a Spanish operator, for wells drilled in 2006. Approximately $7.5 million of the total contract amount was paid offshore in foreign currency, and approximately $3.2 million was paid in local currency. The judgment includes fines and penalties of approximately four times the amount at issue. We have appealed the ruling based on our understanding that the law in question applies only to resident entities incorporated under Algerian law. An intermediate court of appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling, and we appealed the matter to the Algeria Supreme Court, which overturned the decision on September 25, 2014. The case will be reheard in light of the Algeria Supreme Court’s opinion. While our payments were consistent with our historical operations in the country, and, we believe, those of other multinational corporations there, as well as interpretations of the law by the Central Bank of Algeria, the ultimate resolution of this matter could result in a loss of up to $26.8 million in excess of amounts accrued.

In 2012, Nabors Global Holdings II Limited (“NGH2L”) signed a contract with ERG Resources, LLC (“ERG”) relating to the sale of all of the Class A shares of NGH2L’s wholly owned subsidiary, Ramshorn International Limited, an oil and gas exploration company. When ERG failed to meet its closing obligations, NGH2L terminated the transaction on March 19, 2012 and, as contemplated in the agreement, retained ERG’s $3.0 million escrow deposit. ERG filed suit the following day in the 61st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, in a case styled ERG Resources, LLC v. Nabors Global Holdings II Limited, Ramshorn International Limited, and Parex Resources, Inc.; Cause No. 2012-16446, seeking injunctive relief to halt any sale of the shares to a third party, specifically naming as defendant Parex Resources, Inc. (“Parex”). The lawsuit also seeks monetary damages of up to $750.0 million based on an alleged breach of contract by NGH2L and alleged tortious interference with contractual relations by Parex. Nabors successfully defeated ERG’s effort to obtain a temporary restraining order from the Texas court on March 20, 2012. Nabors completed the sale of Ramshorn’s Class A shares to a Parex affiliate in April 2012, which mooted ERG’s application for a temporary injunction. The lawsuit is staid, pending further court actions. ERG retains its causes of action for monetary damages, but Nabors believes the claims are foreclosed by the terms of the agreement and are without factual or legal merit. Although we are vigorously defending the lawsuit, its ultimate outcome cannot be determined at this time.

On July 30, 2014, Nabors and Red Lion, along with C&J Energy Services, Inc. (“CJES”), and the members of the board of directors of CJES, including its management directors, were sued in a putative shareholder class action by the stockholders of CJES. The case is styled City of Miami General Employees’ and Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust, et al. v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al.; C.A. No. 9980; In the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges that the CJES directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the transaction between CJES, Nabors and Red Lion, and that CJES, Nabors and Red Lion aided and abetted these alleged violations. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including an injunction against the consummation of the transactions, together with attorney’s fees and costs. We believe that the case is without merit and intend to vigorously defend it.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements (Including Guarantees)

We are a party to some transactions, agreements or other contractual arrangements defined as “off-balance sheet arrangements” that could have a material future effect on our financial position, results of operations, liquidity and capital resources. The most significant of these off-balance sheet arrangements involve agreements and obligations under which we provide financial or performance assurance to third parties. Certain of these agreements serve as guarantees, including standby letters of credit issued on behalf of insurance carriers in conjunction with our workers’ compensation insurance program and other financial surety instruments such as bonds. In addition, we have provided indemnifications, which serve as guarantees, to some third parties. These guarantees include indemnification provided by Nabors to our share transfer agent and our insurance carriers. We are not able to estimate the potential future maximum payments that might be due under our indemnification guarantees.

Management believes the likelihood that we would be required to perform or otherwise incur any material losses associated with any of these guarantees is remote. The following table summarizes the total maximum amount of financial guarantees issued by Nabors:

	Maximum Amount
	Remainder of 2014		2015		2016		Thereafter		Total
	(In thousands)
Financial standby letters of credit and other financial surety instruments	$	63,632	$	127,994	$	75	$	18	$	191,719