XML 34 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
Commitments and Contingencies
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies

7. Commitments and Contingencies

Deepwater Horizon Incident

On April 22, 2010, a deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling rig known as the Deepwater Horizon, that was operated by BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (“BP”) sank after an explosion and fire that began on April 20, 2010. Pursuant to a contract that the Company entered into with an affiliate of BP, it supplied to BP a wellhead and certain other equipment that were in use on the Deepwater Horizon at the time of the incident. The Company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in both class action and other lawsuits arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident. These lawsuits were consolidated in the multi-district proceeding In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 (“MDL Proceeding”). In 2012, the judge presiding over various lawsuits and proceedings dismissed all claims asserted against the Company in those proceedings with prejudice. On April 9, 2012, the judge issued an order granting a final judgment in favor of the Company with respect to the court’s prior order that granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

One of the lawsuits against the Company consolidated in the MDL Proceeding was a personal injury lawsuit initially filed in a Texas state court. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the lawsuit back to the Texas state court. In August 2014, the Company was informed that this lawsuit was settled and all claims against the Company were released.

Brazilian Tax Issue

From 2002 to 2007, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary imported goods through the State of Espirito Santo in Brazil and subsequently transferred them to its facility in the State of Rio de Janeiro. During that period, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary paid taxes to the State of Espirito Santo on its imports. Upon the final sale of these goods, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary collected taxes from customers and remitted them to the State of Rio de Janeiro net of the taxes paid on importation of those goods to the State of Espirito Santo in accordance with the Company’s understanding of Brazilian tax laws.

In August 2007, the State of Rio de Janeiro served the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary with assessments to collect a state tax on the importation of goods through the State of Espirito Santo from 2002 to 2007 claiming that these taxes were due and payable to it under applicable law. The Company settled these assessments with payments to the State of Rio de Janeiro of $12.2 million in March 2010 and $3.9 million in December 2010. Approximately $7.8 million of these settlement payments were attributable to penalties, interest and amounts that had expired under the statute of limitations so that amount was recorded as an expense. The remainder of the settlement payments generated credits (recorded as a prepaid tax) that can be used to offset future state taxes on sales to customers in the State of Rio de Janeiro once certified by the tax authorities under a process that is currently ongoing. When the credits are certified, the Company will have a five-year period in which to utilize them. In December 2010 and January 2011, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary was served with additional assessments totaling approximately $13.0 million from the State of Rio de Janeiro to cancel the credits associated with the tax payments to the State of Espirito Santo (“Santo Credits”) on the importation of goods from July 2005 to October 2007. The Santo Credits are not related to the credits described above. The Company has objected to this assessment on the grounds that it would represent double taxation on the importation of the same goods and that the Company is entitled to the credits under applicable Brazilian law. The Company believes that these credits are valid and that success in the matter is probable. Based upon this analysis, the Company has not accrued any liability in conjunction with this matter.

Since 2007, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary has paid taxes on the importation of goods directly to the State of Rio de Janeiro and the Company does not expect any similar issues to exist for periods subsequent to 2007.

General

The Company operates its business and markets its products and services in most of the significant oil and gas producing areas in the world and is, therefore, subject to the risks customarily attendant to international operations and dependency on the condition of the oil and gas industry. Additionally, products of the Company are used in potentially hazardous drilling, completion, and production applications that can cause personal injury, product liability, and environmental claims. Although exposure to such risk has not resulted in any significant problems in the past, there can be no assurance that ongoing and future developments will not adversely impact the Company.

The Company is also involved in a number of legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. Although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of such legal action, in the opinion of management, the ultimate liability with respect thereto will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows.