Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2021
Contingencies
Contingencies	Note 10—Contingencies Legal proceedings Debt exchange litigation and purported notice of default—Prior to the consummation of the exchange transactions that we completed in August and September 2020, we completed certain internal reorganization transactions (the “Internal Reorganization”). In September 2020, funds managed by, or affiliated with, Whitebox Advisors LLC (“Whitebox”) as holders of certain series of our notes subject to the exchange offer transactions completed in September 2020 (the “Exchange Offers”), filed a claim (the “Claim”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) related to such certain internal reorganization transactions and the Exchange Offers. Additionally, in September and October 2020, Whitebox and funds managed by, or affiliated with, Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, as debtholders, together with certain other advisors and debtholders, provided purported notices of alleged default with respect to the indentures governing, respectively, the 8.00% Senior Notes and the 7.25% senior notes due November 2025 (the “7.25% Senior Notes”). On September 23, 2020, we filed an answer to the Claim with the Court and asserted counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that, among other matters, the Internal Reorganization did not cause a default under the indenture governing the 8.00% Senior Notes. Concurrently, with our answer and counterclaims, we also submitted a motion for summary judgment seeking an expedited judgment on our request for declaratory judgment. Whitebox subsequently submitted a cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of our counterclaims. On November 30, 2020, while awaiting the Court’s ruling on our motion for summary judgment, we amended certain of our financing documents and implemented certain internal reorganization transactions, which resolved the allegations contained in the purported notices of default. On December 17, 2020, the Court issued its ruling granting our motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, holding, among other matters, that the allegations contained in the purported notice of default did not constitute a default under the indenture governing the 8.00% Senior Notes. Whitebox has appealed the Court’s ruling. The facts alleged in the purported notice of default under the 8.00% Senior Notes were the same as the facts underlying the Claim and the purported notice of default under the 7.25% Senior Notes. Accordingly, following the amendment and internal reorganization transactions on November 30, 2020, and the subsequent ruling from the Court granting our motion for summary judgment, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these matters to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Asbestos litigation—In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi, and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were filed in Louisiana. The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants, generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos-containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages. One of our subsidiaries was named in additional complaints filed in Illinois and Missouri, where the plaintiffs similarly allege that the defendants manufactured asbestos-containing products or used asbestos-containing drilling mud additives in connection with land-based drilling operations. As of March 31, 2021, nine plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana and 14 plaintiffs have claims pending in Illinois and Missouri, in which we have or may have an interest. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no assurance as to the outcome. We historically have maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. One of our subsidiaries has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary’s manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of March 31, 2021, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 256 lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989. In September 2018, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that provided the subsidiary with cash and an annuity. Together with a coverage-in-place agreement with certain insurers and additional coverage issued by other insurers, we believe the subsidiary has sufficient resources to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar nature. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Other matters—We are involved in various tax matters, various regulatory matters, and a number of claims and lawsuits, asserted and unasserted, all of which have arisen in the ordinary course of our business. We do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these other matters to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We cannot predict with certainty the outcome or effect of any of the litigation matters specifically described above or of any such other pending, threatened, or possible litigation or liability. We can provide no assurance that our beliefs or expectations as to the outcome or effect of any tax, regulatory, lawsuit or other litigation matter will prove correct and the eventual outcome of these matters could materially differ from management’s current estimates. Environmental matters We have certain potential liabilities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and similar state acts regulating cleanup of hazardous substances at various waste disposal sites, including those described below. CERCLA is intended to expedite the remediation of hazardous substances without regard to fault. Potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) for each site include present and former owners and operators of, transporters to and generators of the substances at the site. It is difficult to quantify the potential cost of environmental matters and remediation obligations. Liability is strict and can be joint and several. One of our subsidiaries was named as a PRP in connection with a site located in Santa Fe Springs, California, known as the Waste Disposal, Inc. site. We and other PRPs agreed, under a participation agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) and the U.S. Department of Justice, to settle our potential liabilities by remediating the site. The remedial action for the site was completed in 2006. Our share of the ongoing operating and maintenance costs has been insignificant, and we do not expect any additional potential liabilities to be material. Resolutions of other claims by the EPA, the involved state agency or PRPs are at various stages of investigation. Nevertheless, based on available information, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from all environmental matters and known potential legal claims that are likely to be asserted, to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2021

Note 10—Contingencies

Legal proceedings

Debt exchange litigation and purported notice of default—Prior to the consummation of the exchange transactions that we completed in August and September 2020, we completed certain internal reorganization transactions (the “Internal Reorganization”). In September 2020, funds managed by, or affiliated with, Whitebox Advisors LLC (“Whitebox”) as holders of certain series of our notes subject to the exchange offer transactions completed in September 2020 (the “Exchange Offers”), filed a claim (the “Claim”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) related to such certain internal reorganization transactions and the Exchange Offers. Additionally, in September and October 2020, Whitebox and funds managed by, or affiliated with, Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, as debtholders, together with certain other advisors and debtholders, provided purported notices of alleged default with respect to the indentures governing, respectively, the 8.00% Senior Notes and the 7.25% senior notes due November 2025 (the “7.25% Senior Notes”).

On September 23, 2020, we filed an answer to the Claim with the Court and asserted counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that, among other matters, the Internal Reorganization did not cause a default under the indenture governing the 8.00% Senior Notes. Concurrently, with our answer and counterclaims, we also submitted a motion for summary judgment seeking an expedited judgment on our request for declaratory judgment. Whitebox subsequently submitted a cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of our counterclaims. On November 30, 2020, while awaiting the Court’s ruling on our motion for summary judgment, we amended certain of our financing documents and implemented certain internal reorganization transactions, which resolved the allegations contained in the purported notices of default. On December 17, 2020, the Court issued its ruling granting our motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, holding, among other matters, that the allegations contained in the purported notice of default did not constitute a default under the indenture governing the 8.00% Senior Notes. Whitebox has appealed the Court’s ruling.

The facts alleged in the purported notice of default under the 8.00% Senior Notes were the same as the facts underlying the Claim and the purported notice of default under the 7.25% Senior Notes. Accordingly, following the amendment and internal reorganization transactions on November 30, 2020, and the subsequent ruling from the Court granting our motion for summary judgment, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these matters to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Asbestos litigation—In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi, and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were filed in Louisiana. The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants, generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos-containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages. One of our subsidiaries was named in additional complaints filed in Illinois and Missouri, where the plaintiffs similarly allege that the defendants manufactured asbestos-containing products or used asbestos-containing drilling mud additives in connection with land-based drilling operations. As of March 31, 2021, nine plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana and 14 plaintiffs have claims pending in Illinois and Missouri, in which we have or may have an interest. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no assurance as to the outcome. We historically have maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

One of our subsidiaries has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary’s manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of March 31, 2021, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 256 lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989. In September 2018, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that provided the subsidiary with cash and an annuity. Together with a coverage-in-place agreement with certain insurers and additional coverage issued by other insurers, we believe the subsidiary has sufficient resources to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar nature. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Other matters—We are involved in various tax matters, various regulatory matters, and a number of claims and lawsuits, asserted and unasserted, all of which have arisen in the ordinary course of our business. We do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these other matters to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We cannot predict with certainty the outcome or effect of any of the litigation matters specifically described above or of any such other pending, threatened, or possible litigation or liability. We can provide no assurance that our beliefs or expectations as to the outcome or effect of any tax, regulatory, lawsuit or other litigation matter will prove correct and the eventual outcome of these matters could materially differ from management’s current estimates.

Environmental matters

We have certain potential liabilities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and similar state acts regulating cleanup of hazardous substances at various waste disposal sites, including those described below. CERCLA is intended to expedite the remediation of hazardous substances without regard to fault. Potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) for each site include present and former owners and operators of, transporters to and generators of the substances at the site. It is difficult to quantify the potential cost of environmental matters and remediation obligations. Liability is strict and can be joint and several.

One of our subsidiaries was named as a PRP in connection with a site located in Santa Fe Springs, California, known as the Waste Disposal, Inc. site. We and other PRPs agreed, under a participation agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) and the U.S. Department of Justice, to settle our potential liabilities by remediating the site. The remedial action for the site was completed in 2006. Our share of the ongoing operating and maintenance costs has been insignificant, and we do not expect any additional potential liabilities to be material. Resolutions of other claims by the EPA, the involved state agency or PRPs are at various stages of investigation. Nevertheless, based on available information, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from all environmental matters and known potential legal claims that are likely to be asserted, to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.