Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies	Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies Shareholder Litigation In 2010, three shareholder derivative actions were filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, asserting breach of duty and other claims against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company related to the United Nations oil-for-food program governing sales of goods into Iraq, the FCPA and trade sanctions related to the U.S. government investigations disclosed in our U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) filings since 2007. Those shareholder derivative cases were filed in Harris County, Texas state court and consolidated under the caption Neff v. Brady, et al., No. 2010040764 (collectively referred to as the “Neff Case”). Other shareholder demand letters covering the same subject matter were received by the Company in early 2014, and a fourth shareholder derivative action was filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, also asserting breach of duty and other claims against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company related to the same subject matter as the Neff Case. That case, captioned Erste-Sparinvest KAG v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201420933 (Harris County, Texas) was consolidated into the Neff Case in September 2014. A motion to dismiss was granted May 15, 2015 and an appeal, which remains pending, was filed on June 15, 2015. We cannot reliably predict the outcome of the appeal including the amount of any possible loss. If one or more negative outcomes were to occur relative to the Neff Case, the aggregate impact to our financial condition could be material. On June 30, 2015, we signed a stipulation to settle a shareholder securities class action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) for $120 million subject to notice to the class and court approval. The Freedman lawsuit had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in March 2012, and alleged that we and certain current and former officers of Weatherford violated the federal securities laws in connection with the restatements of the Company’s historical financial statements announced on February 21, 2012 and July 24, 2012. On November 4, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment and an order approving the settlement. Pursuant to the settlement, we were required to pay $120 million, which was partially funded by insurance proceeds. There was no admission of liability or fault by an party in connection with the settlement. We are pursuing reimbursement from our insurance carriers and recovered $15 million of the settlement amount in the fourth quarter of 2015. We signed an amended stipulation of settlement in November 2014 to resolve two shareholder derivative actions related to the Company’s restatement of its financial statements and material weakness in internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes. On June 24, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement and entered final judgment in one of the two cases, Wandel v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 1:12-cv-01305-LAK. By agreement with the plaintiffs, a substantially identical shareholder derivative case, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201119822, pending in Harris County, Texas, state court was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. The two cases, purportedly brought on behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and directors, alleged breaches of duty related to our material weakness and restatements. The settlement included an agreed upon set of revised corporate procedures, no monetary payment by the defendants and an award of attorney’s fees and reimbursement of expenses for a total amount of $0.6 million for the plaintiff’s counsel, which we paid in July 2015. There was no admission of liability or fault by any party in connection with the settlement. On January 30, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement of a purported shareholder securities class action captioned Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:11-cv-01646-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) for $53 million. The action named Weatherford and certain current and former officers as defendants. It alleged violation of the federal securities laws in connection with the material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes, and restatement of our historical financial statements announced in March 2011. The settlement was entirely funded by our insurers. There was no admission of liability or fault by any party in connection with the settlement. U.S. Government and Internal Investigations On January 17, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas approved the settlement agreements between us and certain of our subsidiaries and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). On November 26, 2013, we announced that we and our subsidiaries, also entered into settlement agreements with the U.S. Departments of Treasury and Commerce and with the SEC, which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered on December 20, 2013. These agreements collectively resolved investigations of prior alleged violations by us and certain of our subsidiaries relating to certain trade sanctions laws, participation in the United Nations oil-for-food program governing sales of goods into Iraq and non-compliance with FCPA matters. The $253 million payable by us and our subsidiaries was paid in January and February 2014 pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreements. These agreements include a requirement to retain, for a period of at least 18 months, an independent monitor responsible for assessing our compliance with the terms of the agreement so as to address and reduce the risk of recurrence of alleged misconduct, after which we would continue to evaluate our own compliance program and make periodic reports to the DOJ and SEC and maintain agreed upon compliance monitoring and reporting systems. In April 2014, the independent monitor was retained and the compliance assessment period began. In October 2015, the independent monitor submitted a report to the DOJ and SEC with his assessment that we had satisfied the relevant terms of the settlement agreements and recommending that the monitorship be terminated, after which our self-reporting period has begun. These agreements also required us to retain an independent third party to retroactively audit our compliance with U.S. export control laws for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. We retained an independent third party, who has completed these audits. The SEC and DOJ are also investigating the circumstances surrounding the material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes that was disclosed in a notification of late filing on Form 12b-25 filed on March 1, 2011 and in current reports on Form 8-K filed on February 21, 2012 and on July 24, 2012 and the subsequent restatements of our historical financial statements. We are cooperating fully with these investigations. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters due to the inherent uncertainties presented by such investigations, and we are unable to predict potential outcomes or estimate the range of potential loss contingencies, if any. The government, generally, has a broad range of civil and criminal penalties available for these types of matters under applicable law and regulation, including injunctive relief, fines, penalties and modifications to business practices, some of which, if imposed on us, could be material to our business, financial condition or results of operations. Other Additionally, we are aware of various disputes and potential claims and are a party in various litigation involving claims against us, including as a defendant in various employment claims alleging our failure to pay certain classes of workers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Some of these disputes and claims are covered by insurance. For claims, disputes and pending litigation in which we believe a negative outcome is probable and a loss can be reasonably estimated, we have recorded a liability for the expected loss. These liabilities are immaterial to our financial condition and results of operations. In addition we have certain claims, disputes and pending litigation which we do not believe a negative outcome is probable or for which we can only estimate a range of liability. It is possible, however, that an unexpected judgment could be rendered against us, or we could decide to resolve a case or cases, that would result in liability that could be uninsured and beyond the amounts we currently have reserved and in some cases those losses could be material. If one or more negative outcomes were to occur relative to these matters, the aggregate impact to our financial condition could be material.

Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies

Shareholder Litigation

In 2010, three shareholder derivative actions were filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, asserting breach of duty and other claims against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company related to the United Nations oil-for-food program governing sales of goods into Iraq, the FCPA and trade sanctions related to the U.S. government investigations disclosed in our U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) filings since 2007. Those shareholder derivative cases were filed in Harris County, Texas state court and consolidated under the caption Neff v. Brady, et al., No. 2010040764 (collectively referred to as the “Neff Case”). Other shareholder demand letters covering the same subject matter were received by the Company in early 2014, and a fourth shareholder derivative action was filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, also asserting breach of duty and other claims against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company related to the same subject matter as the Neff Case. That case, captioned Erste-Sparinvest KAG v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201420933 (Harris County, Texas) was consolidated into the Neff Case in September 2014. A motion to dismiss was granted May 15, 2015 and an appeal, which remains pending, was filed on June 15, 2015.

We cannot reliably predict the outcome of the appeal including the amount of any possible loss. If one or more negative outcomes were to occur relative to the Neff Case, the aggregate impact to our financial condition could be material.

On June 30, 2015, we signed a stipulation to settle a shareholder securities class action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) for $120 million subject to notice to the class and court approval. The Freedman lawsuit had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in March 2012, and alleged that we and certain current and former officers of Weatherford violated the federal securities laws in connection with the restatements of the Company’s historical financial statements announced on February 21, 2012 and July 24, 2012. On November 4, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment and an order approving the settlement. Pursuant to the settlement, we were required to pay $120 million, which was partially funded by insurance proceeds. There was no admission of liability or fault by an party in connection with the settlement. We are pursuing reimbursement from our insurance carriers and recovered $15 million of the settlement amount in the fourth quarter of 2015.

We signed an amended stipulation of settlement in November 2014 to resolve two shareholder derivative actions related to the Company’s restatement of its financial statements and material weakness in internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes. On June 24, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement and entered final judgment in one of the two cases, Wandel v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 1:12-cv-01305-LAK. By agreement with the plaintiffs, a substantially identical shareholder derivative case, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 201119822, pending in Harris County, Texas, state court was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. The two cases, purportedly brought on behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and directors, alleged breaches of duty related to our material weakness and restatements. The settlement included an agreed upon set of revised corporate procedures, no monetary payment by the defendants and an award of attorney’s fees and reimbursement of expenses for a total amount of $0.6 million for the plaintiff’s counsel, which we paid in July 2015. There was no admission of liability or fault by any party in connection with the settlement.

On January 30, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement of a purported shareholder securities class action captioned Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:11-cv-01646-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) for $53 million. The action named Weatherford and certain current and former officers as defendants. It alleged violation of the federal securities laws in connection with the material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes, and restatement of our historical financial statements announced in March 2011. The settlement was entirely funded by our insurers. There was no admission of liability or fault by any party in connection with the settlement.

U.S. Government and Internal Investigations

On January 17, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas approved the settlement agreements between us and certain of our subsidiaries and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). On November 26, 2013, we announced that we and our subsidiaries, also entered into settlement agreements with the U.S. Departments of Treasury and Commerce and with the SEC, which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered on December 20, 2013. These agreements collectively resolved investigations of prior alleged violations by us and certain of our subsidiaries relating to certain trade sanctions laws, participation in the United Nations oil-for-food program governing sales of goods into Iraq and non-compliance with FCPA matters.

The $253 million payable by us and our subsidiaries was paid in January and February 2014 pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreements. These agreements include a requirement to retain, for a period of at least 18 months, an independent monitor responsible for assessing our compliance with the terms of the agreement so as to address and reduce the risk of recurrence of alleged misconduct, after which we would continue to evaluate our own compliance program and make periodic reports to the DOJ and SEC and maintain agreed upon compliance monitoring and reporting systems. In April 2014, the independent monitor was retained and the compliance assessment period began. In October 2015, the independent monitor submitted a report to the DOJ and SEC with his assessment that we had satisfied the relevant terms of the settlement agreements and recommending that the monitorship be terminated, after which our self-reporting period has begun. These agreements also required us to retain an independent third party to retroactively audit our compliance with U.S. export control laws for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. We retained an independent third party, who has completed these audits.

The SEC and DOJ are also investigating the circumstances surrounding the material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes that was disclosed in a notification of late filing on Form 12b-25 filed on March 1, 2011 and in current reports on Form 8-K filed on February 21, 2012 and on July 24, 2012 and the subsequent restatements of our historical financial statements. We are cooperating fully with these investigations. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters due to the inherent uncertainties presented by such investigations, and we are unable to predict potential outcomes or estimate the range of potential loss contingencies, if any. The government, generally, has a broad range of civil and criminal penalties available for these types of matters under applicable law and regulation, including injunctive relief, fines, penalties and modifications to business practices, some of which, if imposed on us, could be material to our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Other

Additionally, we are aware of various disputes and potential claims and are a party in various litigation involving claims against us, including as a defendant in various employment claims alleging our failure to pay certain classes of workers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Some of these disputes and claims are covered by insurance. For claims, disputes and pending litigation in which we believe a negative outcome is probable and a loss can be reasonably estimated, we have recorded a liability for the expected loss. These liabilities are immaterial to our financial condition and results of operations. In addition we have certain claims, disputes and pending litigation which we do not believe a negative outcome is probable or for which we can only estimate a range of liability. It is possible, however, that an unexpected judgment could be rendered against us, or we could decide to resolve a case or cases, that would result in liability that could be uninsured and beyond the amounts we currently have reserved and in some cases those losses could be material. If one or more negative outcomes were to occur relative to these matters, the aggregate impact to our financial condition could be material.