Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 8 Commitments and Contingencies

Contingencies

Income Tax

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.

In certain jurisdictions we have recognized deferred tax assets and liabilities. Judgment and assumptions are required in determining whether deferred tax assets will be fully or partially utilized. When we estimate that all or some portion of certain deferred tax assets such as net operating loss carryforwards will not be utilized, we establish a valuation allowance for the amount we determine to be more likely than not unrealizable. We continually evaluate strategies that could allow for future utilization of our deferred assets. Any change in the ability to utilize such deferred assets will be accounted for in the period of the event affecting the valuation allowance. If facts and circumstances cause us to change our expectations regarding future tax consequences, the resulting adjustments could have a material effect on our financial results or cash flow. At this time, we consider it more likely than not that we will have sufficient taxable income in the future that will allow us to realize the deferred tax assets that we have recognized. However, it is possible that some of our recognized deferred tax assets, relating to net operating loss carryforwards, could expire unused or could carryforward indefinitely without utilization. Therefore, unless we are able to generate sufficient taxable income from our component operations, a substantial valuation allowance to reduce our deferred tax assets may be required, which would materially increase our tax expense in the period the allowance is recognized and materially adversely affect our results of operations and statement of financial condition.

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 $22.8 million (at March 31, 2020 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 $14.8 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 were heard on 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 have 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 appealed this decision, which was reversed on February 21, 2020. KNDC appealed to the Supreme Court but was unsuccessful in obtaining a reversal of the lower appeals court ruling. 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, of which we have fully accrued as a liability. KNDC and the operator have executed an agreement formalizing the operator’s obligation to reimburse KNDC for many of the financial expenses related to this case as well as penalties and expenses related to future audit periods.

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 5—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	$	215,301	3,804	—	112	$	219,217