Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 15 Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Under the joint venture agreement with Saudi Aramco, the agreement requires us to backstop our share of the joint venture’s obligations to purchase the first 25 drilling rigs in the event that there is insufficient cash in the joint venture or third party financing available. Although we currently anticipate that the future rig purchase needs will be met by cash flows from the joint venture and/or third party financing, no assurance can be given that the joint venture will not require us to fund our backstop.

Leases

Nabors and its subsidiaries occupy various facilities and lease certain equipment under various lease agreements. Rental expense relating to operating leases with terms greater than 30 days amounted to $15.9 million, $18.7 million and $15.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. See Note 21 — Leases for more information on the minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable operating leases.

Contingencies

Income Tax Contingencies

We operate in a number of countries 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.

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 $23.7 million (at December 31, 2019 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 $15.7 million in excess of amounts accrued.

On September 29, 2017, we were sued, along with Tesco Corporation and its Board of Directors, in a putative shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The plaintiff alleges that the September 18, 2017 Preliminary Proxy Statement filed by Tesco with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission omitted material information with respect to the proposed transaction between Tesco and Nabors announced on August 14, 2017. The plaintiff claims that the omissions rendered the Proxy Statement false and misleading, constituting a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court consolidated several matters and entered a lead plaintiff appointment order. The plaintiff filed their amended complaint, adding Nabors Industries Ltd. as a party to the consolidated action. Nabors filed its motion to dismiss, which was granted by the court on March 29, 2019. The parties have filed appellate briefs with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and arguments have been set for March 4, 2020. Nabors will continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

Following a routine audit conducted in May and June of 2018 by the Atyrau Oblast Ecology Department (the “AOED”), our joint venture in Kazakhstan, KMG Nabors Drilling Company (“KNDC”), was administratively fined for not having emissions permits for KNDC owned or leased equipment. Prior to this audit, the AOED had always accepted the operator’s permits for all of their subcontractors. However, because of major personnel changes, AOED changed this position and is now requiring that the owner/lessor of the equipment that emits the pollutants must have its own permits. Administrative fines has been issued to KNDC and paid in the amount of $0.8 million for violations regarding the failure to have proper permits. AOED had also assessed additional “environmental damages” in the amount of $3.4 million for the period while KNDC did not hold its’ own emissions permit. However, KNDC appealed this fine and the AOED Economic Court ruled in KNDC’s favor. AOED has appealed this decision. Additional damages in the form of later year audits and taxes could become due as well exposing KNDC to possible penalties and fines in an amount estimated to be up to approximately $4.0 million. In furtherance of this position, KNDC and the operator have executed an agreement formalizing the operator’s obligation to reimburse KNDC for all financial expenses related to this case.

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 include the A/R Agreement (see Note 4—Accounts Receivable Sales Agreement) and certain agreements and obligations under which we provide financial or performance assurance to third parties. Certain of these financial or performance assurances 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
	2020		2021	2022	Thereafter	Total
	(In thousands)
Financial standby letters of credit and other financial surety instruments	$	216,053	3,690	—	—	$	219,743