Note 7 Commitments and Contingencies

Contingencies

Income Tax

We operate in a number of countries throughout the world and our tax returns filed in those jurisdictions are subject to review and examination by tax authorities within those jurisdictions. We do not recognize the benefit of income tax positions we believe are more likely than not to be disallowed upon challenge by a tax authority. If any tax authority successfully challenges our operational structure, intercompany pricing policies or the taxable presence of our subsidiaries in certain countries, if the terms of certain income tax treaties are interpreted in a manner that is adverse to our structure, or if we lose a material tax dispute in any country, our effective tax rate on our worldwide earnings could change substantially.

We have received an assessment from a tax authority in Latin America in connection with a 2007 income tax return. The assessment relates to the denial of depreciation expense deductions related to drilling rigs. Similar deductions were taken for tax year 2009. Although Nabors and its tax advisors believe these deductions are appropriate and intend to continue to defend our position, we have recorded a partial reserve to account for this contingency. If we ultimately do not prevail, we estimate that we would be required to recognize additional tax expense in the range of $3 million to $8 million.

Self-Insurance

We estimate the level of our liability related to insurance and record reserves for these amounts in our condensed 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. 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. Our policies were renewed effective April 1, 2017 and remains subject to these same deductibles.

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 March 2011, the Court of Ouargla entered a judgment of approximately $25.7 million (at March 31, 2017 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 Supreme Court. On September 25, 2014, the Supreme Court overturned the verdict against us, and the case was reheard by the Ouargla Court of Appeals on March 22, 2015 in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion. On March 29, 2015, the Ouargla Court of Appeals reinstated the initial judgment against us. We have appealed this decision again to the Supreme Court. 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 $17.7 million in excess of amounts accrued.

In March 2012, Nabors Global Holdings II Limited (“NGH2L”) signed an agreement 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 (“Ramshorn”) (“the ERG Agreement”). 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. We successfully defeated ERG’s effort to obtain a temporary restraining order from the Texas court on March 20, 2012 and 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 defendants made numerous jurisdictional challenges on appeal, and on April 30, 2015, ERG filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, the civil actions are currently subject to the bankruptcy stay and ERG’s claims in the lawsuit are assets of the estate. The lawsuit was stayed, pending further court actions, including appeals of the jurisdictional decisions. On June 17, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion on the jurisdictional appeal holding that jurisdiction exists in Texas for Ramshorn, but not for Parex Bermuda or Parex Canada. ERG retains its causes of action for monetary damages, but we believe the claims are foreclosed by the terms of the ERG Agreement and are without factual or legal merit. On December 28, 2016, the District Court granted Nabors’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to Enforce Exclusive Remedies Clause, holding that ERG’s potential recovery in the action may not exceed $4.5 million in accordance with the terms of the ERG Agreement. The plaintiffs have challenged this ruling by filing a motion for rehearing that was heard March 6, 2017. We await the Court’s ruling. Although we continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit, its ultimate outcome cannot be determined at this time.

On July 30, 2014, we and Nabors Red Lion Limited (“Red Lion”), along with C&J Energy and its board of directors, were sued in a putative shareholder class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court of Chancery”). The plaintiff alleges that the members of the C&J Energy board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and that Red Lion and C&J Energy aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Merger and the C&J Energy stockholder meeting for approval of the Merger and, to the extent that the Merger was completed before any relief was granted, to have the Merger rescinded. On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii) preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder meeting until it complied with the foregoing. C&J Energy complied with the order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of the Court of Chancery’s order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware (the “Delaware Supreme Court”). On December 19, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the Court of Chancery’s judgment and vacated the order. Nabors and the C&J Energy defendants filed a motion to dismiss that was granted by the Chancellor on August 24, 2016, including a ruling that C&J Energy could recover on the bond that was posted to support the temporary restraining order. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on September 22, 2016. On March 23, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reargument, which was denied on March 31, 2017, concluding the case.

On March 24, 2015, we completed the Merger of our Completion & Production Services business with C&J Energy. In the Merger and related transactions, we acquired common shares in the combined entity, CJES, and entered into certain ancillary agreements with CJES, including a tax matters agreement, pursuant to which both parties agreed to indemnify each other following the completion of the Merger with respect to certain tax matters. On July 20, 2016, CJES and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, the “debtors”) commenced voluntarily cases under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. On December 12, 2016, we entered into a mediated settlement agreement with various other parties in the CJES bankruptcy proceedings (the “Settlement Agreement”). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, we agreed to support the debtors' chapter 11 plan of reorganization in exchange for: (i) two allowed unsecured claims for which we will receive distributions of up to $4.85 million; (ii) an amendment to the tax matters agreement providing that CJES will likely pay up to $11.5 million of obligations for which we would have otherwise been responsible; (iii) cancellation of various other obligations we had to the debtors; (iv) our pro rata share of warrants to acquire 2% of the common equity in the reorganized debtors; and (v) a mutual release of claims. The bankruptcy court approved the terms of the Settlement Agreement and confirmed the debtors' plan and, on January 6, 2017, CJES announced it had emerged from bankruptcy, thus concluding this proceeding.

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
	2017		2018	2019	Thereafter	Total
	(In thousands)
Financial standby letters of credit and other financial surety instruments	$	276,391	518	11,914	—	$	288,823