Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Disputes, Litigation and Contingencies

19. Disputes, Litigation and Legal Contingencies

We are subject to lawsuits and claims arising out of the nature of our business. We have certain claims, disputes and pending litigation for 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 a 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 cases, the aggregate impact to our financial condition could be material. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, courts in many jurisdictions around the world have been temporarily closed for trials and hearings, which has resulted in delays in many of our litigation matters.

Accrued litigation and settlements recorded in “Other Current Liabilities” on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019 were $43 million and $44 million, respectively.

Shareholder Litigation

GAMCO Shareholder Litigation

On September 6, 2019, GAMCO Asset Management, Inc. (“GAMCO”), purportedly on behalf of itself and other similarly situated shareholders, filed a lawsuit asserting violations of the federal securities laws against certain then-current and former officers and directors of the Company. GAMCO alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) based on allegations that the Company and certain of its officers made false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding our business, operations, prospects and performance. GAMCO seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s ordinary shares from October 26, 2016 through May 10, 2019. GAMCO’s lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, and it is captioned GAMCO Asset Management, Inc. v. McCollum, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-03363. The District Court Judge appointed Utah Retirement Systems (“URS”) as Lead Plaintiff, and on March 16, 2020, URS filed its Amended Complaint. URS added the Company as a defendant but dropped the claims against non-officer board members and all the claims under the Securities Act. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on May 18, 2020, and plaintiffs filed their response on July 3, 2020. The defendants filed a reply brief on August 3, 2020, and now the Court will rule on the motion to dismiss. We cannot reliably predict the outcome of the claims, including the amount of any possible loss.

Prior Shareholder Litigation

In 2010, three shareholder derivative actions were filed, and in 2014 a fourth shareholder derivative action was filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, asserting breach of duty and other claims against certain then-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 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 and trade sanctions related to the U.S. government investigations disclosed in our 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 then 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 was filed on June 15, 2015. Following briefing and oral argument, on June 29, 2017, the Texas Court of Appeals denied in part and granted in part the shareholders’ appeal. The Court ruled that the shareholders lacked standing to bring claims that arose prior to the Company’s redomestication to Switzerland in 2009 and upheld the dismissal of those claims. The Court reversed as premature the trial court’s dismissal of claims arising after the redomestication and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. On February 1, 2018, the individual defendants and nominal defendant Weatherford filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims in the case. On February 13, 2018, the trial court dismissed with prejudice certain directors for lack of jurisdiction. Although the plaintiffs appealed the jurisdictional ruling, on June 19, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice. This litigation has concluded.

Rapid Completions and Packers Plus Litigation

Several subsidiaries of the Company are defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Rapid Completions LLC (“RC”) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on July 31, 2015. RC claims that we and other defendants are liable for infringement of seven U.S. patents related to specific downhole completion equipment and the methods of using such equipment. These patents have been assigned to Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc., a Canadian corporation (“Packers Plus”), and purportedly exclusively licensed to RC. RC is seeking a permanent injunction against further alleged infringement, unspecified damages for infringement, supplemental and enhanced damages, and additional relief such as attorneys’ fees. The Company has filed a counterclaim against Packers Plus, seeking declarations of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the four patents that remain asserted against the Company on the grounds of inequitable conduct. The Company is seeking attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the lawsuit. The litigation was stayed, pending resolution of inter partes reviews (“IPR”) of each of the four patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The PTAB issued decisions during 2018 and 2019 finding that all the claims of the asserted patents challenged by the Company in the IPRs were invalid. RC appealed those decisions to the Federal Circuit, which issued a decision affirming the PTAB’s decision that the patents are invalid on January 21, 2020. The litigation in the U.S. has concluded.

On October 14, 2015, Packers Plus and RC filed suit in Federal Court in Toronto, Canada against the Company and certain subsidiaries alleging infringement of a related Canadian patent and seeking unspecified damages and an accounting of the Company’s profits. Trial on the validity of the Canadian patent was completed in March 2017. On November 3, 2017, the Federal Court issued its decision, wherein it concluded that the defendants proved that the patent-in-suit was invalid and dismissed Packers Plus and RC’s claims of infringement. On January 5, 2018, Packers Plus and RC filed their Notice of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed in favor of Weatherford. Packers Plus and RC filed an Application for Leave to the Supreme Court of Canada requesting that the Supreme Court hear their appeal from the appellate court’s decision, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Application, thus concluding the litigation.

Environmental Contingencies

We have obligations and expect to incur capital, operating and maintenance, and remediation expenditures, as a result of compliance with environmental laws and regulations. Among those obligations, are the current requirements imposed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) at the former Universal Compression facility in Midland, Texas. At this location we are performing a TCEQ-approved Remedial Action Plan (“RAP”) to address contaminated ground water. The performance of the RAP and related expenses are scheduled to be performed over a ten to twenty-year period and, may cost as much as $6 million, which is recorded as undiscounted obligation on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31,

2020. We continuously monitor and strive to maintain compliance with changes in laws and regulations that impact our business.