Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 13— Commitments and Contingencies Transocean Ltd. In January 2017, a subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. (“Transocean”) filed suit against us and certain of our subsidiaries seeking damages for patent infringement in a Texas federal court. The suit claims that five of our newbuild rigs that operated in the US Gulf of Mexico violated Transocean patents relating to what is generally referred to as dual-activity drilling, and Transocean is seeking royalties of a $10.0 million fee and a five percent license fee for the pertinent period of operation for each vessel and damages for the breach of contract. We were aware of the patents when we constructed the rigs. The patents are now expired in the United States and most other countries. While there is inherent risk in litigation, we do not believe that our rigs infringe the Transocean patents. In February 2019, Transocean also added another claim alleging that we breached a 2007 settlement agreement that we entered into with Transocean relating to patent claims in respect of another Noble rig. We also do not believe there has been any breach of the 2007 settlement agreement. The litigation continues, and a trial date has been set for August 2020. We continue to defend ourselves vigorously against this claim. Paragon Offshore On August 1, 2014, Noble-UK completed the separation and spin-off of a majority of its standard specification offshore drilling business (the “Spin-off”) through a pro rata distribution of all of the ordinary shares of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Paragon Offshore plc (“Paragon Offshore”), to the holders of Noble’s ordinary shares. In February 2016, Paragon Offshore sought approval of a pre-negotiated plan of reorganization (the “Prior Plan”) by filing for voluntary relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. As part of the Prior Plan, we entered into a settlement agreement with Paragon Offshore (the “Settlement Agreement”). The Prior Plan was rejected by the bankruptcy court in October 2016. In April 2017, Paragon Offshore filed a revised plan of reorganization (the “New Plan”) in its bankruptcy proceeding. Under the New Plan, Paragon Offshore no longer needed the Mexican tax bonding that Noble-UK was required to provide under the Settlement Agreement. Consequently, Paragon Offshore abandoned the Settlement Agreement as part of the New Plan, and the Settlement Agreement was terminated at the time of the filing of the New Plan. On May 2, 2017, Paragon Offshore announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with both its secured and unsecured creditors to revise the New Plan to create and fund a litigation trust to pursue litigation against us. On June 7, 2017, the revised New Plan was approved by the bankruptcy court, and Paragon Offshore emerged from bankruptcy on July 18, 2017. On December 15, 2017, the litigation trust filed claims relating to the Spin-off against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors in the Delaware bankruptcy court that heard Paragon Offshore’s bankruptcy, and the litigation trust filed an amended complaint in October 2019. The amended complaint alleges claims of actual and constructive fraudulent conveyance, unjust enrichment and recharacterization of intercompany notes as equity claims against Noble and claims of breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the officer and director defendants. The litigation trust is seeking damages of (i) approximately $1.7 billion from the Company, an amount equal to the amount borrowed by Paragon Offshore immediately prior to the Spin-off, (ii) an additional approximately $935 million relating to the transfer of intercompany receivables and notes from a Paragon subsidiary to a Noble subsidiary prior to the Spin-off (bringing the total claimed damages to approximately $2.6 billion), and (iii) unspecified amounts in respect of the claims against the officer and director defendants all of whom have indemnification agreements with us. A trial date has been set for September 2020. We believe that Paragon Offshore, at the time of the Spin-off, was properly funded, solvent and had appropriate liquidity and that the claims brought by the litigation trust are without merit. However, the Company continually assesses potential outcomes, including the probability of the parties ultimately resolving the matter through settlement in light of various factors, including given the complex factual issues involved, the uncertainty and risk inherent in this type of litigation, the time commitment and distraction of our organization, the potential effect of the ongoing litigation and uncertainty on our business, and the substantial expense incurred in litigating the claims. As such, the Company’s current estimated loss related to the final disposition of this matter is $100.0 million, which the Company recorded as a general and administrative expense for the year ended December 31, 2019 and is reflected as a current liability as of March 31, 2020. As pre-trial matters progress, the Company’s estimated loss could change from time to time, and any such change individually or in the aggregate could be material. There is inherent risk and substantial expense in litigation, and the amount of damages that the plaintiff is seeking is substantial. If any of the litigation trust’s claims are successful, or if we elect to settle any claims (in part to reduce or eliminate the ongoing cost of defending the litigation and eliminate any risk of a larger judgment against us), any damages or other amounts we would be required to or agree to pay in excess of the amount we recognized at March 31, 2020, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including impeding our ability to meet ongoing financial obligations or to continue as a going concern. Given the risks and considerations discussed above, we cannot predict with any degree of certainty what the outcome of the litigation may be. Furthermore, as discussed below, we cannot predict the amount of insurance coverage, if any, that we may have if we were to settle or be found liable in the litigation. We have directors’ and officers’ indemnification coverage for the officers and directors who have been sued by the litigation trust. The insurers have accepted coverage for the director and officer claims and we are continuing to discuss with them the scope of their reimbursement of litigation expenses. In addition, at the time of the Spin-off, we had entity coverage, or “Side C” coverage, which was meant to cover certain litigation claims up to the coverage limit of $150.0 million, including litigation expenses. We have made a claim for coverage of the litigation trust’s claims against Noble under such entity insurance. The insurers have rejected coverage for these claims. However, we intend to pursue coverage should the litigation be concluded adversely to us or should we settle. We cannot predict the amount of claims and expenses we may incur, pay or settle in the Paragon Offshore litigation that such insurance will cover, if any. Prior to the completion of the Spin-off, Noble-UK and Paragon Offshore entered into a series of agreements to effect the separation and Spin-off and govern the relationship between the parties after the Spin-off (the “Separation Agreements”), including a Master Separation Agreement (the “MSA”) and a Tax Sharing Agreement (the “TSA”). As part of its final bankruptcy plan, Paragon Offshore rejected the Separation Agreements. Accordingly, the indemnity obligations that Paragon Offshore potentially would have owed us under the Separation Agreements have now terminated, including indemnities arising under the MSA and the TSA in respect of obligations related to Paragon Offshore’s business that were incurred through Noble-retained entities prior to the Spin-off. Likewise, any potential indemnity obligations that we would have owed Paragon Offshore under the Separation Agreements, including those under the MSA and the TSA in respect of Noble-UK’s business that was conducted prior to the Spin-off through Paragon Offshore-retained entities, are now also extinguished. In the absence of the Separation Agreements, liabilities relating to the respective parties will be borne by the owner of the legal entity or asset at issue and neither party will look to an allocation based on the historic relationship of an entity or asset to one of the party’s business, as had been the case under the Separation Agreements. The rejection and ultimate termination of the indemnity and related obligations under the Separation Agreements resulted in a number of accounting charges and benefits during the year ended December 31, 2017, and such termination may continue to affect us in the future as liabilities arise for which we would have been indemnified by Paragon Offshore or would have had to indemnify Paragon Offshore. We do not expect that, overall, the rejection of the Separation Agreements by Paragon Offshore will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or liquidity. However, any loss we experience with respect to which we would have been able to secure indemnification from Paragon Offshore under one or more of the Separation Agreements could have an adverse impact on our results of operations in any period, which impact may be material depending on our results of operations during this down-cycle. During the three months ended March 31, 2019, we recognized charges of $3.8 million recorded in “Net loss from discontinued operations, net of tax” on our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations relating to settlement of Mexico customs audits from rigs included in the Spin-off. Tax matters During the third quarter of 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) initiated its examination of our 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 tax returns. In October 2019, we received a notice that the IRS added our 2016 and 2017 tax returns to its examination. We believe that we have accurately reported all amounts in our 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 tax returns. Audit claims of approximately $60.5 million attributable to income and other business taxes were assessed against Noble entities in Mexico related to tax years 2005 and 2007 and in Australia related to tax years 2013 to 2016. We intend to vigorously defend our reported positions and believe the ultimate resolution of the audit claims will not have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements. 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 recognize uncertain tax positions that we believe have a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being sustained upon challenge by a tax authority. We cannot predict or provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of any existing or future assessments. Other contingencies We have entered into agreements with certain of our executive officers, as well as certain other employees. These agreements become effective upon a change of control of Noble-UK (within the meaning set forth in the agreements) or a termination of employment in connection with or in anticipation of a change of control and remain effective for three years thereafter. These agreements provide for compensation and certain other benefits under such circumstances. We are a defendant in certain claims and litigation arising out of operations in the ordinary course of business, including personal injury claims, the resolution of which, in the opinion of management, will not be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. There is inherent risk in any litigation or dispute and no assurance can be given as to the outcome of these claims.

In January 2017, a subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. (“Transocean”) filed suit against us and certain of our subsidiaries seeking damages for patent infringement in a Texas federal court. The suit claims that five of our newbuild rigs that operated in the US Gulf of Mexico violated Transocean patents relating to what is generally referred to as dual-activity drilling, and Transocean is seeking royalties of a $10.0 million fee and a five percent license fee for the pertinent period of operation for each vessel and damages for the breach of contract. We were aware of the patents when we constructed the rigs. The patents are now expired in the United States and most other countries. While there is inherent risk in litigation, we do not believe that our rigs infringe the Transocean patents. In February 2019, Transocean also added another claim alleging that we breached a 2007 settlement agreement that we entered into with Transocean relating to patent claims in respect of another Noble rig. We also do not believe there has been any breach of the 2007 settlement agreement. The litigation continues, and a trial date has been set for August 2020. We continue to defend ourselves vigorously against this claim.

On August 1, 2014, Noble-UK completed the separation and spin-off of a majority of its standard specification offshore drilling business (the “Spin-off”) through a pro rata distribution of all of the ordinary shares of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Paragon Offshore plc (“Paragon Offshore”), to the holders of Noble’s ordinary shares. In February 2016, Paragon Offshore sought approval of a pre-negotiated plan of reorganization (the “Prior Plan”) by filing for voluntary relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. As part of the Prior Plan, we entered into a settlement agreement with Paragon Offshore (the “Settlement Agreement”). The Prior Plan was rejected by the bankruptcy court in October 2016.

In April 2017, Paragon Offshore filed a revised plan of reorganization (the “New Plan”) in its bankruptcy proceeding. Under the New Plan, Paragon Offshore no longer needed the Mexican tax bonding that Noble-UK was required to provide under the Settlement Agreement. Consequently, Paragon Offshore abandoned the Settlement Agreement as part of the New Plan, and the Settlement Agreement was terminated at the time of the filing of the New Plan. On May 2, 2017, Paragon Offshore announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with both its secured and unsecured creditors to revise the New Plan to create and fund a litigation trust to pursue litigation against us. On June 7, 2017, the revised New Plan was approved by the bankruptcy court, and Paragon Offshore emerged from bankruptcy on July 18, 2017.

On December 15, 2017, the litigation trust filed claims relating to the Spin-off against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors in the Delaware bankruptcy court that heard Paragon Offshore’s bankruptcy, and the litigation trust filed an amended complaint in October 2019. The amended complaint alleges claims of actual and constructive fraudulent conveyance, unjust enrichment and recharacterization of intercompany notes as equity claims against Noble and claims of breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the officer and director defendants. The litigation trust is seeking damages of (i) approximately $1.7 billion from the Company, an amount equal to the amount borrowed by Paragon Offshore immediately prior to the Spin-off, (ii) an additional approximately $935 million relating to the transfer of intercompany receivables and notes from a Paragon subsidiary to a Noble subsidiary prior to the Spin-off (bringing the total claimed damages to approximately $2.6 billion), and (iii) unspecified amounts in respect of the claims against the officer and director defendants all of whom have indemnification agreements with us. A trial date has been set for September 2020.

We believe that Paragon Offshore, at the time of the Spin-off, was properly funded, solvent and had appropriate liquidity and that the claims brought by the litigation trust are without merit. However, the Company continually assesses potential outcomes, including the probability of the parties ultimately resolving the matter through settlement in light of various factors, including given the complex factual issues involved, the uncertainty and risk inherent in this type of litigation, the time commitment and distraction of our organization, the potential effect of the ongoing litigation and uncertainty on our business, and the substantial expense incurred in litigating the claims. As such, the Company’s current estimated loss related to the final disposition of this matter is $100.0 million, which the Company recorded as a general and administrative expense for the year ended December 31, 2019 and is reflected as a current liability as of March 31, 2020. As pre-trial matters progress, the Company’s estimated loss could change from time to time, and any such change individually or in the aggregate could be material.

There is inherent risk and substantial expense in litigation, and the amount of damages that the plaintiff is seeking is substantial. If any of the litigation trust’s claims are successful, or if we elect to settle any claims (in part to reduce or eliminate the ongoing cost of defending the litigation and eliminate any risk of a larger judgment against us), any damages or other amounts we would be required to or agree to pay in excess of the amount we recognized at March 31, 2020, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including impeding our ability to meet ongoing financial obligations or to continue as a going concern. Given the risks and considerations discussed above, we cannot predict with any degree of certainty what the outcome of the litigation may be. Furthermore, as discussed below, we cannot predict the amount of insurance coverage, if any, that we may have if we were to settle or be found liable in the litigation.

We have directors’ and officers’ indemnification coverage for the officers and directors who have been sued by the litigation trust. The insurers have accepted coverage for the director and officer claims and we are continuing to discuss with them the scope of their reimbursement of litigation expenses. In addition, at the time of the Spin-off, we had entity coverage, or “Side C” coverage, which was meant to cover certain litigation claims up to the coverage limit of $150.0 million, including litigation expenses. We have made a claim for coverage of the litigation trust’s claims against Noble under such entity insurance. The insurers have rejected coverage for these claims. However, we intend to pursue coverage should the litigation be concluded adversely to us or should we settle. We cannot predict the amount of claims and expenses we may incur, pay or settle in the Paragon Offshore litigation that such insurance will cover, if any.

Prior to the completion of the Spin-off, Noble-UK and Paragon Offshore entered into a series of agreements to effect the separation and Spin-off and govern the relationship between the parties after the Spin-off (the “Separation Agreements”), including a Master Separation Agreement (the “MSA”) and a Tax Sharing Agreement (the “TSA”).

As part of its final bankruptcy plan, Paragon Offshore rejected the Separation Agreements. Accordingly, the indemnity obligations that Paragon Offshore potentially would have owed us under the Separation Agreements have now terminated, including indemnities arising under the MSA and the TSA in respect of obligations related to Paragon Offshore’s business that were incurred through Noble-retained entities prior to the Spin-off. Likewise, any potential indemnity obligations that we would have owed Paragon Offshore under the Separation Agreements, including those under the MSA and the TSA in respect of Noble-UK’s business that was conducted prior to the Spin-off through Paragon Offshore-retained entities, are now also extinguished. In the absence of the Separation Agreements, liabilities relating to the respective parties will be borne by the owner of the legal entity or asset at issue and neither party will look to an allocation based on the historic relationship of an entity or asset to one of the party’s business, as had been the case under the Separation Agreements.

The rejection and ultimate termination of the indemnity and related obligations under the Separation Agreements resulted in a number of accounting charges and benefits during the year ended December 31, 2017, and such termination may continue to affect us in the future as liabilities arise for which we would have been indemnified by Paragon Offshore or would have had to indemnify Paragon Offshore. We do not expect that, overall, the rejection of the Separation Agreements by Paragon Offshore will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or liquidity. However, any loss we experience with respect to which we would have been able to secure indemnification from Paragon Offshore under one or more of the Separation Agreements could have an adverse impact on our results of operations in any period, which impact may be material depending on our results of operations during this down-cycle.

During the three months ended March 31, 2019, we recognized charges of $3.8 million recorded in “Net loss from discontinued operations, net of tax” on our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations relating to settlement of Mexico customs audits from rigs included in the Spin-off.

During the third quarter of 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) initiated its examination of our 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 tax returns. In October 2019, we received a notice that the IRS added our 2016 and 2017 tax returns to its examination. We believe that we have accurately reported all amounts in our 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 tax returns.

Audit claims of approximately $60.5 million attributable to income and other business taxes were assessed against Noble entities in Mexico related to tax years 2005 and 2007 and in Australia related to tax years 2013 to 2016. We intend to vigorously defend our reported positions and believe the ultimate resolution of the audit claims will not have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements.

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 recognize uncertain tax positions that we believe have a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being sustained upon challenge by a tax authority. We cannot predict or provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of any existing or future assessments.

We have entered into agreements with certain of our executive officers, as well as certain other employees. These agreements become effective upon a change of control of Noble-UK (within the meaning set forth in the agreements) or a termination of employment in connection with or in anticipation of a change of control and remain effective for three years thereafter. These agreements provide for compensation and certain other benefits under such circumstances.

We are a defendant in certain claims and litigation arising out of operations in the ordinary course of business, including personal injury claims, the resolution of which, in the opinion of management, will not be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. There is inherent risk in any litigation or dispute and no assurance can be given as to the outcome of these claims.