Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	8. Commitments and Contingencies We are subject to litigation, claims and disputes in the ordinary course of business, some of which may not be covered by insurance. There is an inherent risk in any litigation or dispute and no assurance can be given as to the outcome of any claims. Brazil Improbity Action On April 27, 2018, the Company was added as an additional defendant in a legal proceeding (the “Improbity Action”), initiated by the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor against certain individuals, including an executive of Petrobras and two political lobbyists, in connection with the contracting of the Titanium Explorer drillship to Petrobras under the Drilling Contract, with the Brazilian Government and Petrobras as plaintiffs. Vantage is alleged to have been involved in and benefitted from the purported bribery scheme at Petrobras through Hamylton Padilha, the Brazilian agent our former parent company, VDC, used in the contracting of the Titanium Explorer drillship to Petrobras, and Mr. Hsin-Chi Su, a former member of VDC’s board of directors and a significant shareholder of VDC. We first became aware of the legal proceeding on July 19, 2018 as it was previously under seal. On March 22, 2019, we were formally served in the United States, and we filed our preliminary statement of defense with the 11th Federal court of the Judicial Branch of Curitiba, State of Parana, Brazil (the “Brazilian Federal Court”) on April 12, 2019 in response. On August 20, 2020, the Brazilian Federal Court dismissed our preliminary statement of defense. On October 5, 2020, we subsequently filed a motion to clarify with the Brazilian Federal Court requesting the reconsideration of certain aspects of the decision dismissing our preliminary statement of defense. Our motion to clarify was denied on December 14, 2020, and on February 10, 2021 we filed an interlocutory appeal to the 4th Circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals in Porto Alegre, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (the “Brazilian Appellate Court”), the appellate court hearing appeals in the “Car Wash” cases, seeking to reverse the Brazilian Federal Court’s denial of our preliminary defense. On April 15, 2021, the Brazilian authorities served us indirectly through the U.S. Department of Justice agreeing to formally send us documents related to the Improbity Action. On May 13, 2021, the Brazilian Appellate Court’s reporting judge for our matter granted our request for preliminary relief and ordered an immediate stay of the Improbity Action as it applies to the Company until the judgment (on the merits) of the interlocutory appeal is rendered by the full three judge panel of the Brazilian Appellate Court. We will be obligated to file a statement of defense in the matter if the decision to stay the Improbity Action is later reversed. The Company understands that the Improbity Action, is a civil action and is part of the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor’s larger “Car Wash” investigation into money laundering and corruption allegations in Brazil. The damages claimed in the proceeding are in the amount of BRL 102.8 million or approximately $22.2 million (changes in the U.S. dollar amounts result from foreign exchange rate fluctuations), together with a civil fine equal to three times that amount. The Company understands that the Brazilian Federal Court previously issued an order authorizing the seizure and freezing of the assets of the Company and the other three defendants in the legal proceeding, as a precautionary measure, in the amount of approximately $88.9 million. The Company and the other three defendants are jointly and severally liable for this amount. The seizure order has not had an effect on the Company’s assets or operations, as the Company does not own any assets in Brazil, and does not currently intend to relocate any assets to Brazil. On February 13, 2019, the Company learned that the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor had previously requested mutual legal assistance from the U.S. DOJ pursuant to the United Nations Convention against Corruption of 2003 to obtain a freezing order against the Company’s U.S. assets in the approximate amount of $88.9 million. On April 12, 2019, the Company filed an interlocutory appeal with the Brazilian Appellate Court to stay the seizure and freezing order of the Brazilian Federal Court. On May 20, 2019, the Company announced that the Brazilian Appellate Court's reporting judge ruled in favor of the Company’s appeal to stay the seizure and freezing order of the Brazilian Federal Court. The foregoing ruling is still subject to confirmation by a three-judge panel, and is subject to appeal, and the Company can offer no assurances that the stay will be confirmed or as to the outcome of any appeal thereof. The Company communicated the Brazilian Appellate Court’s ruling to the DOJ and has asked the Brazilian Federal Court to do the same. On July 18, 2019, the Company announced that the Brazilian Government made a filing with the Brazilian Federal Court reporting that the DOJ has advised the Brazilian Ministry of Justice that it would not be possible for the DOJ to comply with the mutual assistance request in respect of the asset freeze order. The Company also announced that it learned from the Brazilian Ministry of Justice that the DOJ’s response to the request for mutual assistance stated that no legal grounds existed for implementing the requested asset freeze, and that the DOJ was returning the request without taking action and considers the matter concluded. The Company has defended, and intends to continue to vigorously defend against the allegations made in the Improbity Action and oppose and defend against any attempts to seize the Company's assets. However, we can neither predict the ultimate outcome of this matter nor that there will not be further developments in the “Car Wash” investigation or in any other ongoing investigation or related proceeding that could adversely affect us. At this time, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

8. Commitments and Contingencies

We are subject to litigation, claims and disputes in the ordinary course of business, some of which may not be covered by insurance. There is an inherent risk in any litigation or dispute and no assurance can be given as to the outcome of any claims.

Brazil Improbity Action

On April 27, 2018, the Company was added as an additional defendant in a legal proceeding (the “Improbity Action”), initiated by the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor against certain individuals, including an executive of Petrobras and two political lobbyists, in connection with the contracting of the Titanium Explorer drillship to Petrobras under the Drilling Contract, with the Brazilian Government and Petrobras as plaintiffs. Vantage is alleged to have been involved in and benefitted from the purported bribery scheme at Petrobras through Hamylton Padilha, the Brazilian agent our former parent company, VDC, used in the contracting of the Titanium Explorer drillship to Petrobras, and Mr. Hsin-Chi Su, a former member of VDC’s board of directors and a significant shareholder of VDC. We first became aware of the legal proceeding on July 19, 2018 as it was previously under seal. On March 22, 2019, we were formally served in the United States, and we filed our preliminary statement of defense with the 11th Federal court of the Judicial Branch of Curitiba, State of Parana, Brazil (the “Brazilian Federal Court”) on April 12, 2019 in response. On August 20, 2020, the Brazilian Federal Court dismissed our preliminary statement of defense. On October 5, 2020, we subsequently filed a motion to clarify with the Brazilian Federal Court requesting the reconsideration of certain aspects of the decision dismissing our preliminary statement of defense. Our motion to clarify was denied on December 14, 2020, and on February 10, 2021 we filed an interlocutory appeal to the 4th Circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals in Porto Alegre, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (the “Brazilian Appellate Court”), the appellate court hearing appeals in the “Car Wash” cases, seeking to reverse the Brazilian Federal Court’s denial of our preliminary defense. On April 15, 2021, the Brazilian authorities served us indirectly through the U.S. Department of Justice agreeing to formally send us documents related to the Improbity Action. On May 13, 2021, the Brazilian Appellate Court’s reporting judge for our matter granted our request for preliminary relief and ordered an immediate stay of the Improbity Action as it applies to the Company until the judgment (on the

merits) of the interlocutory appeal is rendered by the full three judge panel of the Brazilian Appellate Court. We will be obligated to file a statement of defense in the matter if the decision to stay the Improbity Action is later reversed. The Company understands that the Improbity Action, is a civil action and is part of the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor’s larger “Car Wash” investigation into money laundering and corruption allegations in Brazil.

The damages claimed in the proceeding are in the amount of BRL 102.8 million or approximately $22.2 million (changes in the U.S. dollar amounts result from foreign exchange rate fluctuations), together with a civil fine equal to three times that amount. The Company understands that the Brazilian Federal Court previously issued an order authorizing the seizure and freezing of the assets of the Company and the other three defendants in the legal proceeding, as a precautionary measure, in the amount of approximately $88.9 million. The Company and the other three defendants are jointly and severally liable for this amount. The seizure order has not had an effect on the Company’s assets or operations, as the Company does not own any assets in Brazil, and does not currently intend to relocate any assets to Brazil. On February 13, 2019, the Company learned that the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor had previously requested mutual legal assistance from the U.S. DOJ pursuant to the United Nations Convention against Corruption of 2003 to obtain a freezing order against the Company’s U.S. assets in the approximate amount of $88.9 million.

On April 12, 2019, the Company filed an interlocutory appeal with the Brazilian Appellate Court to stay the seizure and freezing order of the Brazilian Federal Court.

On May 20, 2019, the Company announced that the Brazilian Appellate Court's reporting judge ruled in favor of the Company’s appeal to stay the seizure and freezing order of the Brazilian Federal Court. The foregoing ruling is still subject to confirmation by a three-judge panel, and is subject to appeal, and the Company can offer no assurances that the stay will be confirmed or as to the outcome of any appeal thereof. The Company communicated the Brazilian Appellate Court’s ruling to the DOJ and has asked the Brazilian Federal Court to do the same. On July 18, 2019, the Company announced that the Brazilian Government made a filing with the Brazilian Federal Court reporting that the DOJ has advised the Brazilian Ministry of Justice that it would not be possible for the DOJ to comply with the mutual assistance request in respect of the asset freeze order. The Company also announced that it learned from the Brazilian Ministry of Justice that the DOJ’s response to the request for mutual assistance stated that no legal grounds existed for implementing the requested asset freeze, and that the DOJ was returning the request without taking action and considers the matter concluded.

The Company has defended, and intends to continue to vigorously defend against the allegations made in the Improbity Action and oppose and defend against any attempts to seize the Company's assets. However, we can neither predict the ultimate outcome of this matter nor that there will not be further developments in the “Car Wash” investigation or in any other ongoing investigation or related proceeding that could adversely affect us. At this time, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter.