Note 13—Commitments and Contingencies

Macondo well incident settlement obligations

Overview—On April 22, 2010, the Ultra-Deepwater Floater Deepwater Horizon sank after a blowout of the Macondo well caused a fire and explosion on the rig. Eleven persons were declared dead and others were injured as a result of the incident. At the time of the explosion, Deepwater Horizon was located approximately 41 miles off the coast of Louisiana in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 and was contracted to an affiliate of BP plc. (together with its affiliates, “BP”).

On January 3, 2013, we reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to resolve certain outstanding civil and potential criminal charges against us arising from the Macondo well incident. As part of this resolution, we agreed to a guilty plea (“Plea Agreement”) and a civil consent decree (“Consent Decree”) by which, among other things, we agreed to pay $1.4 billion in fines, recoveries and civil penalties, plus interest at a fixed rate of 2.15 percent, in scheduled payments through February 2017.

In the nine months ended September 30, 2014, we made an aggregate cash payment of $60 million in satisfaction of amounts due under the Plea Agreement, including $53 million to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and $7 million to the National Academy of Sciences. In the nine months ended September 30, 2013, we made an aggregate cash payment of $160 million in satisfaction of amounts due under the Plea Agreement, including $100 million for the payment of the criminal fine, $58 million for the initial payment to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and $2 million for the initial payment to the National Academy of Sciences.

In the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, we paid $412 million and $404 million, respectively, including interest, in satisfaction of amounts due under the Consent Decree.

At September 30, 2014, the aggregate future payments required under our outstanding settlement obligations under the Plea Agreement and the Consent Decree, excluding interest, were as follows (in millions):

	Plea Agreement		Consent Decree		Settlement obligations
Twelve months ending September 30,
2015	$	60	$	200	$	260
2016	60		—		60
2017	60		—		60
Total settlement obligations	$	180	$	200	$	380

The resolution with the DOJ of such civil and potential criminal claims did not include potential claims arising from the False Claims Act investigation. As part of the settlement discussions, however, we inquired whether the U.S. intends to pursue any actions under the False Claims Act as discussed below. In response, the DOJ sent us a letter stating that the Civil Division of the DOJ, based on facts then known, was no longer pursuing any investigation or claims, and did not have any present intention to pursue any investigation or claims, under the False Claims Act against the various Transocean entities for their involvement in the Macondo well incident.

We also agreed that payments made pursuant to the Plea Agreement or the Consent Decree are not deductible for tax purposes and that payments made pursuant to the Consent Decree are not to be used as a basis for indemnity or reimbursement from BP or other non-insurer defendants named in the complaint by the U.S.

Plea Agreement—Pursuant to the Plea Agreement, which was accepted by the court on February 14, 2013, one of our subsidiaries pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of negligently discharging oil into the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, in violation of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). We agreed to pay a criminal fine of $100 million and to consent to the entry of an order requiring us to pay a total of $150 million to the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation and $150 million to the National Academy of Sciences.

Our subsidiary also agreed to be subject to probation through February 2018. The DOJ agreed, subject to the provisions of the Plea Agreement, not to further prosecute us for certain conduct generally regarding matters under investigation by the DOJ’s Deepwater Horizon Task Force. In addition, we agreed to continue to cooperate with the Deepwater Horizon Task Force in any ongoing investigation related to or arising from the accident.

Consent Decree—Pursuant to the Consent Decree, which was approved by the court on February 19, 2013, we agreed to take specified actions relating to operations in U.S. waters, including, among other things, the design and implementation of, and compliance with, additional systems and procedures; blowout preventer certification and reports; measures to strengthen well control competencies, drilling monitoring, recordkeeping, incident reporting, risk management and oil spill training, exercises and response planning; communication with operators; alarm systems; transparency and responsibility for matters relating to the Consent Decree; and technology innovation, with a first emphasis on more efficient, reliable blowout preventers. We agreed to submit a performance plan (the “Performance Plan”) for approval by the DOJ within 120 days after the date of entry of the Consent Decree. On June 14, 2013, we submitted our proposed Performance Plan, containing among other required items, interim milestones for actions in specified areas and a proposed schedule for reports required under the Consent Decree. On January 2, 2014, the DOJ approved the Performance Plan.

The Consent Decree also provides for the appointment of (i) an independent auditor to review, audit and report on our compliance with the injunctive provisions of the Consent Decree and (ii) an independent process safety consultant to review, report on and assist with respect to the process safety aspects of the Consent Decree, including operational risk identification and risk management. The Consent Decree requires certain plans, reports and submissions be made and be acceptable to the U.S. and also requires certain publicly available filings. On March 31, 2014, the DOJ approved the appointment of Labyrinth Group to act as the independent auditor. On May 12, 2014, the DOJ approved the appointment of Mr. Malcolm Sharples as the independent process safety consultant.

Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the U.S. agreed not to sue Transocean Ltd. and certain of our subsidiaries and certain related individuals for civil or administrative penalties for the Macondo well incident under specified provisions of the CWA, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OSCLA”), the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, the Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”) and the Clean Air Act. In addition, the Consent Decree resolved our appeal of the incidents of noncompliance under the OSCLA issued by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement on October 12, 2011 without any admission of liability by us, and we subsequently dismissed our appeal.

The Consent Decree did not resolve the rights of the U.S. with respect to all other matters, including certain liabilities under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”) for removal costs or resulting from a natural resources damages assessment (“NRDA”). The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (the “MDL Court”) held that we are not a responsible party under OPA for damages resulting from subsurface discharge from the Macondo well incident. If this ruling is upheld on appeal, our NRDA liability as a responsible party would be limited to any such damages arising from any above-surface discharge. However, in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from the Phase One Trial, the MDL Court ruled that Transocean was the “operator” of the Macondo well and was, therefore, liable for removal costs under 33 U.S.C. § 2704(c)(3), a separate provision of OPA that permits government entities to recover removal costs by owners and operators of a facility or vessel from which oil discharges. As discussed below, however, the MDL Court found that “Transocean’s liability to government entities for removal costs is ultimately shifted to BP by virtue of the contractual indemnity.”

We may request termination of the Consent Decree after we have: (i) completed timely the civil penalty payment requirements of the Consent Decree; (ii) operated under a fully approved Performance Plan required under the Consent Decree through a five-year performance period ending January 2, 2019; (iii) complied with the terms of the Performance Plan and certain provisions of the Consent Decree, generally relating to a framework and outline of measures to improve performance, for at least 12 consecutive months prior to seeking termination; and (iv) complied with the other requirements of the Consent Decree, including payment of any stipulated penalties and compliant reporting.

EPA Agreement—On February 25, 2013, we and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) entered into an administrative agreement (the “EPA Agreement”), which has a five-year term. The EPA Agreement resolved all matters relating to suspension, debarment and statutory disqualification arising from the matters contemplated by the Plea Agreement. Subject to our compliance with the terms of the EPA Agreement, the EPA agreed that it will not suspend, debar or statutorily disqualify us and will lift any existing suspension, debarment or statutory disqualification.

In the EPA Agreement, we agreed to, among other things, (1) comply with our obligations under the Plea Agreement and the Consent Decree; (2) continue the implementation of certain programs and systems, including the scheduled revision of our environmental management system and maintenance of certain compliance and ethics programs; (3) comply with certain employment and contracting procedures; (4) engage independent compliance auditors and a process safety consultant to, among other things, assess and report to the EPA on our compliance with the terms of the Plea Agreement, the Consent Decree and the EPA Agreement; and (5) give reports and notices with respect to various matters, including those relating to compliance, misconduct, legal proceedings, audit reports, the EPA Agreement, the Consent Decree and the Plea Agreement. Subject to certain exceptions, the EPA Agreement prohibits us from entering into, extending or engaging in certain business relationships with individuals or entities that are debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment or similarly restricted.

Macondo well incident contingencies

Overview—We have recognized a liability for estimated loss contingencies associated with litigation and investigations resulting from the Macondo well incident that we believe are probable and for which a reasonable estimate can be made. At September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the liability for estimated loss contingencies that we believe are probable and for which a reasonable estimate can be made was $431 million and $464 million, respectively, recorded in other current liabilities. The litigation and investigations also give rise to certain loss contingencies that we believe are either reasonably possible or probable but for which we do not believe a reasonable estimate can be made. Although we have not recognized a liability for such loss contingencies, these contingencies could result in liabilities that we ultimately recognize.

We have also recognized an asset associated with the portion of our estimated losses that we believe is probable of recovery from insurance. At September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the insurance recoverable asset was $10 million, recorded in other assets. Although we have available policy limits that could result in additional amounts recoverable from insurance, recovery of such additional amounts is not probable and we are not currently able to estimate such amounts (see “—Insurance coverage”). Our estimates involve a significant amount of judgment. As a result of new information or future developments, we may increase our estimated loss contingencies arising out of the Macondo well incident or reduce our estimated recoveries from insurance, and the resulting losses could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Multidistrict litigation proceeding—Many of the Macondo well related claims are pending in the MDL Court. Phase One of the trial began on February 25, 2013 and testimony concluded on April 17, 2013. This phase addressed fault issues, including negligence, gross negligence, or other bases of liability of the various defendants with respect to the cause of the blowout and the initiation of the oil spill, as well as limitation of liability issues. In June and July 2013, the parties filed post-trial briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

On September 4, 2014, the MDL Court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Phase One trial. The MDL Court concluded that BP was grossly negligent and reckless and 67 percent at fault for the blowout, explosion, and spill; that Transocean was negligent and 30 percent at fault; and that Halliburton Company (“Halliburton”) was negligent and three percent at fault. Because the MDL Court found that Transocean was not grossly negligent, it concluded that BP’s contractual agreement to indemnify us for compensatory damages is valid and enforceable and, as a result, we no longer have exposure for punitive damages. The MDL Court also ruled that BP’s contractual agreement to release its own claims against us is valid and enforceable. This release bars the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee (the “PSC”) from pursuing claims that have been assigned to it by BP in the BP/PSC settlement.

The MDL Court’s rulings include a number of Transocean-specific findings and conclusions. The MDL Court found that the Deepwater Horizon’s crew was negligent in its conduct of a negative pressure test, which was intended, among other things, to test the integrity of the cement in the well, and in certain well control decisions in the hour before the blowout. The MDL Court found three other bases for imposing negligence liability on Transocean as follows: (1) the crew’s improper diversion of fluids that had entered the riser to the rig’s mud-gas separator instead of overboard; (2) the crew’s failure to properly maintain the BOP; and (3) the master’s failure to timely activate the Emergency Disconnect System as a consequence of an ambiguous command structure. The MDL Court held that these three failures were “within Transocean’s privity and knowledge.” As a result, the MDL Court held that Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Deepwater Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., three of our wholly owned subsidiaries, could not limit their liability under the Limitation of Liability Act. Under the MDL Court’s ruling, however, we are entitled to indemnity from BP for any compensatory damages resulting from oil discharged from the Macondo well.

The MDL Court also concluded that we were an “operator” of the Macondo well for purposes of 33 U.S.C. § 2704(c)(3), a provision of OPA that permits government entities to recover removal costs by owners and operators of a facility or vessel that caused a discharge. The MDL Court, however, reiterated that “Transocean’s liability to government entities for removal costs is ultimately shifted to BP by virtue of contractual indemnity.”

The MDL Court released two Transocean entities from liability under general maritime law. First, the MDL Court held that Transocean Ltd. was not liable under general maritime law. The MDL Court also granted a motion for judgment on partial findings by Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, the entity that owned Deepwater Horizon and our wholly owned subsidiary, on the grounds that any negligence or unseaworthiness that caused the blowout arose after the bareboat charter commenced.

The Phase One ruling did not quantify damages or result in a final monetary judgment. However, because it is a determination of liability under maritime law, the Phase One ruling is likely appealable.

Before the Phase One trial, in March 2012, BP and the PSC announced that they had agreed to a partial settlement related primarily to private party environmental and economic loss claims as well as response effort related claims (the “BP/PSC Settlement”). The BP/PSC Settlement agreement provides that (a) to the extent permitted by law, BP will assign to the settlement class certain of BP’s claims, rights and recoveries against us for damages with protections such that the settlement class is barred from collecting any amounts from us unless it is finally determined that we cannot recover such amounts from BP, and (b) the settlement class releases all claims for compensatory damages against us but purports to retain claims for punitive damages against us.

On December 21, 2012, the MDL Court granted final approval of the economic and property damage class settlement between BP and the PSC. Various parties who objected to the BP/PSC Settlement have filed appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”) challenging the MDL Court’s final approval of the BP/PSC Settlement. BP filed appeals in the Fifth Circuit challenging the manner in which the BP/PSC Settlement has been interpreted by the MDL Court with respect to business economic loss claims (“BEL Claims”). In these appeals, BP argued that, if the MDL Court’s interpretation of the settlement with respect to BEL Claims was not overturned, the entire BP/PSC Settlement was invalid and should not have been approved. On October 2, 2013, a panel of the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion questioning the manner in which the settlement had been interpreted with respect to BEL Claims. On December 24, 2013, the MDL Court issued an order (the “BEL Order”) regarding the BEL Claims in which it ruled that (a) variable profits should be determined under the settlement agreement by matching revenue with corresponding expenses; (b) BP was judicially estopped from arguing that claimants were required to submit evidence to prove causation; and (c) as construed by the court, the settlement was consistent with Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Rule 23, and the U.S. Rules Enabling Act. BP appealed the BEL Order, but on March 3, 2014, the same panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the MDL Court’s ruling that claimants were not required to submit evidence of causation.

On January 10, 2014, another panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the MDL Court’s final approval of the BP/PSC Settlement. Thereafter, BP and certain plaintiffs who objected to the settlement filed petitions seeking rehearing in the Fifth Circuit of both decisions. On May 20, 2014, the Fifth Circuit denied those petitions. On August 1, 2014, BP filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Fifth Circuit’s decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the petition.

In December 2012, in response to the BP/PSC Settlement, we filed three motions seeking partial summary judgment on various claims, including punitive damages claims. The MDL Court has not formally ruled on these motions, but the MDL Court ruled in the Phase One Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that we were not reckless or grossly negligent and thus are not liable for punitive damages.

In May 2013, we filed a motion seeking partial summary judgment on claims asserted by BP against us seeking damages from loss of the well and for source-control and cleanup costs (the “Direct Damages” claims). The Direct Damages claims are included in the claims BP assigned to the economic and property damages settlement class. The motion argues that BP released the Direct Damages claims in its contract with us and that the release is enforceable even if we are found grossly negligent. Some courts have held that such agreements will not be enforced if the defendant is found grossly negligent. The MDL Court has not ruled on this motion, but, as discussed above, the MDL Court ruled in the Phase One Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that we were not grossly negligent and thus found that BP’s release of claims is valid and enforceable.

On September 2, 2014, Halliburton and the PSC filed a proposed settlement of the PSC’s punitive damages and assigned claims against Halliburton. The proposed settlement agreement prohibits the PSC from settling any assigned claims against us unless we agree to release Halliburton from any claims for contribution or indemnity for amounts paid under the settlement. The proposed agreement purports to reserve the PSC’s rights to continue pursuing assigned or punitive damages claims against us, but the MDL Court’s Phase One Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prevent the PSC from pursuing those claims. The MDL Court has not yet approved the settlement.

Phase Two of the trial began on September 30, 2013 and concluded on October 17, 2013. This phase addressed BP’s conduct related to stopping the release of hydrocarbons after April 22, 2010 and quantification of the amount of oil discharged. In light of BP’s criminal plea agreement with the DOJ acknowledging that it provided the government with false or misleading information throughout the spill response, we argued at trial that BP’s fraud delayed the final capping of the well and that we should not be liable for damages resulting from this delay. On December 20, 2013, the parties filed post-trial briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on January 24, 2014, the parties filed response briefs. The MDL Court has not yet ruled on the issues tried in the second phase of the trial.

We can provide no assurances as to the outcome of the Phase Two trial or, any appeals of the Phase One ruling, as to the timing of any further rulings, that we will not enter into additional settlements as to some or all of the matters related to the Macondo well incident, including those to be determined at a trial, or the timing or terms of any such settlements.

See Note 18—Subsequent Events.

Litigation—As of September 30, 2014, approximately 1,412 actions or claims were pending against us, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in state and federal courts. Additionally, government agencies have initiated investigations into the Macondo well incident. We have categorized below the nature of the legal actions or claims. We are evaluating all claims and intend to vigorously defend any claims and pursue any and all defenses available. In addition, we believe we are entitled to contractual defense and indemnity for all wrongful death and personal injury claims made by non-employees and third-party subcontractors’ employees as well as all liabilities for pollution or contamination, other than for pollution or contamination originating on or above the surface of the water. See “—Contractual indemnity.”

Wrongful death and personal injury—As of September 30, 2014, we have been named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in nine complaints that were pending in state and federal courts in Louisiana and Texas involving multiple plaintiffs that allege wrongful death and other personal injuries arising out of the Macondo well incident. Nine complaints involve fatalities and 63 complaints seek recovery for bodily injuries. A number of these lawsuits have been settled. Per the order of the Multidistrict Litigation Panel (“MDL”), all claims but one have been centralized for discovery purposes in the MDL Court. The complaints generally allege negligence and seek awards of unspecified economic damages and punitive damages. BP, MI-SWACO, Weatherford International Ltd. and Cameron International Corporation (“Cameron”) and certain of their affiliates, have, based on contractual arrangements, also made indemnity demands upon us with respect to personal injury and wrongful death claims asserted by our employees or representatives of our employees against these entities. See “—Contractual indemnity.”

Economic loss—As of September 30, 2014, we and certain of our subsidiaries were named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in 996 pending individual complaints as well as 183 putative class-action complaints that were pending in the federal and state courts in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida and possibly other courts. The complaints generally allege, among other things, potential economic losses as a result of environmental pollution arising out of the Macondo well incident and are based primarily on OPA and state OPA analogues. The plaintiffs are generally seeking awards of unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. No classes have been certified at this time. Most of these actions have either been transferred to or are the subject of motions to transfer to the MDL. See “—Contractual indemnity.”

Cross-claims, counter-claims, and third-party claims—In April 2011, several defendants in the MDL litigation filed cross-claims or third-party claims against us and certain of our subsidiaries, and other defendants. BP filed a claim seeking contribution under OPA and maritime law, subrogation and claimed breach of contract, unseaworthiness, negligence and gross negligence. Through these claims, BP sought to recover from us damages it has paid or may pay arising from the Macondo well incident. BP also sought a declaration that it is not liable in contribution, indemnification, or otherwise to us. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (“Anadarko”), which owned a 25 percent non-operating interest in the Macondo well, asserted claims of negligence, gross negligence, and willful misconduct and is seeking indemnity under state and maritime law and contribution under maritime and state law as well as OPA. MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC (“MOEX”), which owned a 10 percent non-operating interest in the Macondo well, filed claims of negligence under state and maritime law, gross negligence under state law, gross negligence and willful misconduct under maritime law and is seeking indemnity under state and maritime law and contribution under maritime law and OPA. Cameron, the manufacturer and designer of the blowout preventer, asserted multiple claims for contractual indemnity and declarations regarding contractual obligations under various contracts and quotes and is also seeking non-contractual indemnity and contribution under maritime law and OPA. As part of the BP/PSC Settlement, one or more of these claims against us and certain of our subsidiaries have been assigned to the PSC settlement class. Halliburton, which provided cementing and mud-logging services to the operator, filed a claim against us seeking contribution and indemnity under maritime law, contractual indemnity and alleging negligence and gross negligence. Additionally, certain other third parties filed claims against us for indemnity and contribution.

In April 2011, we filed cross-claims and counter-claims against BP, Halliburton, Anadarko, MOEX, certain of these parties’ affiliates, the U.S. and certain other third parties. We seek indemnity, contribution, including contribution under OPA, and subrogation under OPA, and we have asserted claims for breach of warranty of workmanlike performance, strict liability for manufacturing and design defect, breach of express contract, and damages for the difference between the fair market value of Deepwater Horizon and the amount received from insurance proceeds. The Consent Decree limits our ability to seek indemnification or reimbursement with respect to certain of these matters against the owners of the Macondo well and dismissed our claims against the U.S. We are not pursuing arbitration on the key contractual issues with BP; instead, we are relying on the court to resolve the disputes.

Federal securities claims—On September 30, 2010, a federal securities proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, naming us and former chief executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and one of our acquired companies as defendants. In the action, a former shareholder of the acquired company alleged that the joint proxy statement related to our shareholder meeting in connection with our merger with the acquired company violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff claimed that the acquired company’s shareholders received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory damages and attorneys’ fees on behalf of itself and the proposed class members. In connection with that action, we were obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual defendants, which may be covered by our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, subject to a deductible. On October 4, 2012, the court denied our motion to dismiss the action. On June 27, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”) ruled in the unrelated action on an issue that could be relevant to the disposition of this case in a manner that supported our position that the plaintiff’s existing claims alleged in the action are time-barred. On August 30, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the claims are time-barred, citing the ruling of the Second Circuit. On September 20, 2013, plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss and on September 24, 2013, we filed a reply to that opposition. On March 11, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the claims as time-barred. On March 13, 2014, judgment was entered and the case was closed. On March 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit. On April 23, 2014, the Second Circuit granted plaintiff’s motion to stay pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS Inc., in which certiorari was granted at 134 S. Ct. 1515 (2014).

Other federal statutes—Several of the claimants have made assertions under the statutes, including the CWA, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Clean Air Act, the CERCLA and the EPCRA.

Shareholder derivative claims—In June 2010, two shareholder derivative suits were filed in the state district court in Texas by our shareholders naming us as a nominal defendant and certain of our current and former officers and directors as defendants. These cases allege breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets in connection with the Macondo well incident. The plaintiffs are generally seeking to recover, on behalf of us, damages to Transocean Ltd. and disgorgement of all profits, benefits, and other compensation from the individual defendants. Any recovery of the damages or disgorgement by the plaintiffs in these actions would be paid to us. If the plaintiffs prevail, we could be required to pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. In addition, we are obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual defendants, which may be covered by our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, subject to a deductible. The two actions have been consolidated before a single judge. In August 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the actions must be maintained in the courts of Switzerland and that the plaintiffs lack standing to assert the claims alleged. In December 2012, in response to defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the plaintiffs dismissed their action without prejudice. In January 2013, one of the plaintiffs re-filed a previously dismissed complaint seeking to recover damages to Transocean Ltd. and disgorgement of all profits, benefits, and other compensation from the individual defendants. Certain defendants filed a motion to dismiss the re-filed complaint in March 2013 on the ground that the action must be maintained in the courts of Switzerland. On July 30, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss. On August 29, 2013, the state district court of Texas dismissed the action in its entirety as to all defendants. Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas on September 6, 2013 and filed a brief in support of their appeal on November 27, 2013. On February 10, 2014, the defendants filed a response to the appeal, and on March 3, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a reply. On July 24, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs had until August 8, 2014 to seek a rehearing or reconsideration of the decision by the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas and until September 8, 2014 to seek review by the Texas Supreme Court, but let both deadlines pass.

U.S. Department of Justice claims—On December 15, 2010, the DOJ filed a civil lawsuit against us and other unaffiliated defendants. The complaint alleged violations under OPA and the CWA, including claims for per barrel civil penalties of up to $1,100 per barrel or up to $4,300 per barrel if gross negligence or willful misconduct is established, and the DOJ reserved its rights to amend the complaint to add new claims and defendants. The U.S. government has estimated that up to 4.1 million barrels of oil were discharged and subject to penalties. The complaint asserted that all defendants named are jointly and severally liable for all removal costs and damages resulting from the Macondo well incident. In response to the U.S. complaint, BP and Anadarko filed claims seeking contribution from us for any damages for which they may be found liable, including OPA damages.

On February 22, 2012, the MDL Court ruled on cross-motions for partial summary judgment filed by DOJ, Anadarko and us that we are not liable as a responsible party for damages under OPA with respect to the below surface discharges from the Macondo well. The MDL Court also ruled that, for purpose of the CWA, oil discharged from the well facility, and not from the Deepwater Horizon vessel, and that we, therefore, are not liable for such discharges under the CWA as an owner of the vessel. However, the MDL Court ruled that the issue of whether we could be held liable for such discharge under the CWA as an operator of the well facility could not be resolved on summary judgment. The MDL Court later ruled in the Phase One Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that we were the operator of the well facility. In January 2013, we entered into an agreement with the DOJ regarding liability to the U.S. with respect to its CWA claim through the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree did not resolve the rights of the U.S. with respect to certain liabilities under OPA for removal costs or resulting from NRDA.

In August and September 2012, Anadarko and BP filed appeals to the Fifth Circuit, in which they argued that, under the CWA, oil discharged from the vessel, not from the well facility. On June 4, 2014, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the ruling of the MDL Court that BP and Anadarko are liable for civil penalties under the CWA. The opinion did not address whether we could be considered the operator of the well for purposes of penalties under the CWA. BP and Anadarko have petitioned for rehearing. The Fifth Circuit, however, has not acted on the petition. As a result of our Consent Decree agreement, the outcome of this appeal does not affect our CWA civil penalty liability for the Macondo well incident. See “—Macondo well incident settlement obligations.”

In addition to the civil complaint, the DOJ served us with civil investigative demands on December 8, 2010. These demands were part of an investigation by the DOJ to determine if we made false claims, or false statements in support of claims, in violation of the False Claims Act, in connection with the operator’s acquisition of the leasehold interest in the Mississippi Canyon Block 252, Gulf of Mexico and drilling operations on Deepwater Horizon. As part of the settlement discussions, we inquired whether the U.S. intends to pursue any actions under the False Claims Act. In response, the DOJ sent us a letter stating that the Civil Division of the DOJ, based on facts then known, is no longer pursuing any investigation or claims, and did not have any present intention to pursue any investigation or claims, under the False Claims Act against the various Transocean entities for their involvement in the Macondo well incident.

As noted above, the DOJ also conducted a criminal investigation into the Macondo well incident. On March 7, 2011, the DOJ announced the formation of the Deepwater Horizon Task Force to lead the criminal investigation. The task force investigated possible violations by us and certain unaffiliated parties of the CWA, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Refuse Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Seaman’s Manslaughter Act, among other federal statutes, and possible criminal liabilities, including fines under those statutes and under the Alternative Fines Act. As discussed above, on January 3, 2013, we entered into the Plea Agreement with the DOJ resolving these claims. See “—Macondo well incident settlement obligations.”

State and other government claims—In June 2010, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (the “LDEQ”) issued a consolidated compliance order and notice of potential penalty to us and certain of our subsidiaries asking us to eliminate and remediate discharges of oil and other pollutants into waters and property located in the State of Louisiana, and to submit a plan and report in response to the order. In October 2010, the LDEQ rescinded its enforcement actions against us and our subsidiaries but reserved its rights to seek civil penalties for future violations of the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act. In September 2010, the State of Louisiana filed an action for declaratory judgment seeking to designate us as a responsible party under OPA and the Louisiana Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act for the discharges emanating from the Macondo well.

Prior to the possible expiration of the statute of limitations in April 2013, suits were filed by over 200 state, local and foreign governments, including the U.S. States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas; the Mexican States of Veracruz, Quintana Roo and Tamaulipas (“Mexican States”); the Federal Government of Mexico and by other local governments by and on behalf of multiple towns and parishes. These governments generally assert claims under OPA, other statutory environmental state claims and various common law claims. A local government master complaint also was filed in which cities, municipalities, and other local government entities can, and have, joined. Most of these new government cases, including the suits filed by the attorneys general of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, have been transferred to the MDL.

The Mexican States’ OPA claims were subsequently dismissed for failure to demonstrate that recovery under OPA was authorized by treaty or executive agreement. However, the Court preserved some of the Mexican States’ negligence and gross negligence claims, but only to the extent there has been a physical injury to a proprietary interest. On September 6, 2013, the MDL Court ruled that the Federal Government of Mexico rather than the Mexican States had the proprietary interest in the property and natural resources allegedly injured by the spill and, on that basis, dismissed the remaining claims of the Mexican States. The Mexican States have appealed to the Fifth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit has scheduled oral argument for October 27, 2014. The claims of the Federal Government of Mexico remain pending. On September 18, 2013, the Mexican State of Yucatan filed a suit similar to those filed by the other Mexican States.

By letter dated May 5, 2010, the Attorneys General of the five Gulf Coast states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas informed us that they intend to seek recovery of pollution cleanup costs and related damages arising from the Macondo well incident. In addition, by letter dated June 21, 2010, the Attorneys General of the 11 Atlantic Coast states of Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and South Carolina informed us that their states have not sustained any damage from the Macondo well incident but they would like assurances that we will be responsible financially if damages are sustained. We responded to each letter from the Attorneys General and indicated that we intend to fulfill our obligations as a responsible party for any discharge of oil from Deepwater Horizon on or above the surface of the water, and we assume that the operator will similarly fulfill its obligations under OPA for discharges from the undersea well.

On August 26, 2011, the MDL Court ruled on the motion to dismiss certain economic loss claims. The MDL Court ruled that state law, both statutory and common law, is inapplicable to the Macondo well incident. Accordingly, all claims brought under state law were dismissed. Secondly, general maritime law claims that do not allege physical damage to a proprietary interest were dismissed, unless the claim falls into the commercial fisherman exception. The court ruled that OPA claims for economic loss do not require physical damage to a proprietary interest. Third, the MDL Court ruled that presentment under OPA is a mandatory condition precedent to filing suit against a responsible party. Finally, the MDL Court ruled that claims for punitive damages may be available under general maritime law in claims against responsible parties and non-responsible parties. Certain Louisiana parishes appealed the dismissal of the state law penalty claims. On February 24, 2014, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the MDL Court’s dismissal of the state law claims.

The state, local and foreign government claims include claims under OPA. On February 22, 2012, the MDL Court ruled that we are not a responsible party under OPA for damages with respect to subsurface discharge from the Macondo well. The MDL Court subsequently found that we are an “operator” under OPA and are liable to the government for removal costs, though it also concluded that BP must indemnify us for this liability.

Prior to the possible expiration of the three-year statute of limitations on April 20, 2013, additional private plaintiffs filed new lawsuits relating to the Macondo well incident. We are named as a defendant in many but not all of the new lawsuits. The lawsuits seek recoveries for economic loss and punitive damages and allege claims under OPA, maritime law and state law. Some of the new lawsuits were filed in the MDL Court, but many were filed in state and federal courts outside of the MDL Court. Most of these cases have been transferred to the MDL and, consistent with our prior experience, we expect the remaining cases to be transferred to the MDL Court.

The MDL Court has begun proceeding with respect to Alabama’s compensatory damages claims under OPA and general maritime law. On January 14, 2014, the MDL Court ordered briefing on BP’s motion to strike Alabama’s demand for a jury trial. BP filed its motion on February 14, 2014. We and Halliburton filed briefs in support of the motion. Alabama opposed the motion and the other Gulf Coast states filed briefs in support of Alabama. BP filed its reply on March 25, 2014, and Transocean filed a reply memorandum on March 28, 2014. The MDL Court has not yet ruled on the motion. The MDL Court has set a schedule for pretrial discovery in the Alabama damages case. Fact discovery is scheduled to end on January 30, 2015, and expert discovery is scheduled to end on May 29, 2015. The MDL Court has not yet scheduled a trial date.

Natural Resources Damages Assessments—Under OPA, designated state and federal trustees are authorized to undertake a NRDA to assess potential natural resource injuries resulting from a discharge of oil or the substantial threat of a discharge and response activities and develop and implement a plan for restoration of injured resources, if any. The trustees will invite responsible parties to participate in and fund such efforts. As of September 30, 2014, we have received 11 such requests as follows: (1) on September 27, 2010, from the U.S. Department of Commerce-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association; (2) on October 14, 2010 from the U.S. Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service; (3) on November 19, 2010, from the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections-Public Safety Services; (4) on December 23, 2011, from the U.S. Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service; (5) on December 23, 2011, from the U.S. Department of Commerce-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association; (6) on May 4, 2012, from the U.S. Department of Commerce-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association; (7) on July 27, 2012, from the U.S. Department of Commerce-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (8) on September 19, 2012, from the U.S. Department of Commerce-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (9) on September 24, 2012, from the U.S. Department of Commerce-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (10) on October 4, 2012, from the U.S. Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service; and (11) on July 11, 2013, from the U.S. Department of Commerce-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We responded to these requests and declined to participate in the funding on the grounds that we are not a responsible party for discharges from the wellhead. The government is proceeding with the NRDA with funding provided by BP.

Citizen suits under environmental statutes—The Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”), a private environmental group, sued BP, us and certain of our affiliates under multiple federal environmental statutes seeking monetary penalties and injunctive relief. The MDL Court dismissed all of the claims, and in January 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed that dismissal with one exception: the Fifth Circuit remanded to the district court the Center’s claim for injunctive relief, but not for penalties, based on BP and Transocean’s alleged failure to make certain reports about the constituents of oil spilled into the U.S. Gulf of Mexico as required by federal EPCRA.

On April 15, 2014, BP and we moved for summary judgment. On the same day, the Center moved for partial summary judgment against BP. It did not move for partial summary judgment against us, though it purported to reserve its right to do so in the future. Opposition briefs were filed on May 5, 2014, and reply briefs were filed on May 19, 2014. The MDL Court has not yet scheduled a hearing date for oral argument or indicated when it will rule on the motions.

Wreck removal—By letter dated December 6, 2010, the U.S. Coast Guard requested us to formulate and submit a comprehensive oil removal plan to remove any diesel fuel contained in the sponsons and fuel tanks that can be recovered from Deepwater Horizon. We have conducted a survey of the rig wreckage and have confirmed that no diesel fuel remains on the rig. The U.S. Coast Guard has not requested that we remove the rig wreckage from the sea floor. In October 2012, a new sheen was reported and preliminarily determined to have originated from the Macondo well. We understand that BP was notified of the sheen in early September 2012 and had commenced an investigation to determine the source, whether the oil and mud were from the sea floor, the rig or rig equipment, or other sources. In February 2013, the U.S. Coast Guard submitted a request seeking analysis and recommendations as to the potential life of the rig’s riser and cofferdam resting on the seafloor and potential remediation or removal options. We have insurance coverage for wreck removal for up to 25 percent of Deepwater Horizon’s insured value, or $140 million, with any excess wreck removal liability generally covered to the extent of our remaining excess liability limits.

Insurance coverage—At the time of the Macondo well incident, our excess liability insurance program offered aggregate insurance coverage of $950 million, excluding a $15 million deductible and a $50 million self-insured layer through our wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary. This excess liability insurance coverage consisted of a first and a second layer of $150 million each, a third and fourth layer of $200 million each and a fifth layer of $250 million. The first four excess layers have similar coverage and contractual terms, while the $250 million fifth layer is on a different policy form, which varies to some extent from the underlying coverage and contractual terms. Generally, we believe that the policy forms for all layers include coverage for personal injury and fatality claims of our crew and vendors, actual and compensatory damages, punitive damages and related legal defense costs and that the policy forms for the first four excess layers provide coverage for fines; however, we do not expect payments deemed to be criminal in nature to be covered by any of the layers.

In May 2010, we received notice from BP maintaining that it believes that it is entitled to additional insured status under our excess liability insurance program. Our insurers have also received notices from Anadarko and MOEX advising of their intent to preserve any rights they may have to our insurance policies as an additional insured under the drilling contract. In response, our wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary and our first four excess layer insurers filed declaratory judgment actions in the Houston Division of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in May 2010 seeking a judgment declaring that they have limited additional insured obligations to BP, Anadarko and MOEX. We are parties to the declaratory judgment actions, which were transferred to the MDL Court for discovery and other purposes. On November 15, 2011, the MDL Court ruled that BP’s coverage rights are limited to the scope of our indemnification of BP in the drilling contract. A final judgment was entered against BP, Anadarko and MOEX, and BP appealed. On March 1, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the decision of the MDL Court, and holding that BP is an unrestricted additional insured under the policies issued by our wholly owned captive insurance company and the first four excess layer insurers. We and the insurers filed petitions for rehearing with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 29, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion withdrawing the March 1, 2013 opinion and certifying certain insurance law questions to the Texas Supreme Court. On September 6, 2013, the Texas Supreme Court accepted certification of these questions. The parties’ briefing to the Texas Supreme Court was completed on March 10, 2014. Oral argument was held on September 16, 2014. The Texas Supreme Court has not ruled on the certified questions.

We believe that additional insured coverage for BP, Anadarko or MOEX under the $250 million fifth layer of our insurance program is limited to the scope of our indemnification of BP under the drilling contract. While we cannot predict the outcome of the matter before the Texas Supreme Court or the outcome of any subsequent proceedings in the Fifth Circuit, we do not expect them to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On June 17, 2011 and July 31, 2012, our first layer and second layer of excess insurers, respectively, each representing $150 million of insurance coverage, filed interpleader actions. On February 14, 2013, the third and fourth layers, each representing $200 million of insurance coverage, filed interpleader actions substantially similar to the prior filings. The insurers contend that they face multiple, and potentially competing, claims to the relevant insurance proceeds. In these actions, the insurers effectively ask the court to manage disbursement of the funds to the alleged claimants, as appropriate, and discharge the insurers of any additional liability. The parties to the first and second excess insurer interpleader actions have executed protocol agreements to facilitate the reimbursement and funding of settlements of personal injury and fatality claims of our crew and vendors (collectively, “crew claims”) using insurance funds and claims were submitted to the court for review. Following the court’s determination and approval of the amounts to be paid by the insurers with respect to the crew claims submitted by the parties, the first layer of excess insurers made reimbursement payments to the parties for crew claims during the year ended December 31, 2013. Additional claims have been submitted to the court in 2014, and we are awaiting the court’s determination and approval of the amounts to be paid by insurers. Parties to the third and fourth excess insurer interpleader actions have agreed to adjourn the deadline for responses to the pleadings to an unspecified date that will follow a decision in another action that pertains to our insurance.

Contractual indemnity—Under our drilling contract for Deepwater Horizon, the operator has agreed, among other things, to assume full responsibility for and defend, release and indemnify us from any loss, expense, claim, fine, penalty or liability for pollution or contamination, including control and removal thereof, arising out of or connected with operations under the contract other than for pollution or contamination originating on or above the surface of the water from hydrocarbons or other specified substances within the control and possession of the contractor, as to which we agreed to assume responsibility and protect, release and indemnify the operator. Although we do not believe it is applicable to the Macondo well incident, we also agreed to indemnify and defend the operator up to a limit of $15 million for claims for loss or damage to third parties arising from pollution caused by the rig while it is off the drilling location, while the rig is underway or during drive off or drift off of the rig from the drilling location. The operator has also agreed, among other things, (1) to defend, release and indemnify us against loss or damage to the reservoir, and loss of property rights to oil, gas and minerals below the surface of the earth and (2) to defend, release and indemnify us and bear the cost of bringing the well under control in the event of a blowout or other loss of control. We agreed to defend, release and indemnify the operator for personal injury and death of our employees, invitees and the employees of our subcontractors while the operator agreed to defend, release and indemnify us for personal injury and death of its employees, invitees and the employees of its other subcontractors, other than us. We have also agreed to defend, release and indemnify the operator for damages to the rig and equipment, including salvage or removal costs.

Although we believe we are entitled to contractual defense and indemnity, the operator has sought to avoid its indemnification obligations. In April 2011, the operator filed a claim seeking a declaration that it is not liable to us in contribution, indemnification, or otherwise. On November 1, 2011, we filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking enforcement of the indemnity obligations for pollution and civil fines and penalties contained in the drilling contract with the operator. On January 26, 2012, the court ruled that the drilling contract requires the operator to indemnify us for compensatory damages asserted by third parties against us related to pollution that did not originate on or above the surface of the water, even if the claim is the result of our strict liability, negligence, or gross negligence. The court also held that the operator does not owe us indemnity to the extent that we are held liable for civil penalties under the CWA or for punitive damages, and we have since agreed with the DOJ that we will not seek indemnity or reimbursement of our Consent Decree payments from the operator or the other non-insurer defendants named in the complaint by the U.S. The court initially deferred ruling on the operator’s argument that we committed a core breach of the drilling contract or otherwise materially increased the operator’s risk or prejudiced its rights so as to vitiate the operator’s indemnity obligations. In the September 4, 2014 ruling, however, the MDL Court upheld the indemnities, implicitly finding no core breach of contract occurred. Our motion for partial summary judgment and the court’s ruling did not address the issue of contractual indemnity for criminal fines and penalties. The law generally considers contractual indemnity for criminal fines and penalties to be against public policy. Our motion did not ask the court to rule on the validity of BP’s agreement in the drilling contract to release us from any claims asserted by BP itself. Some courts have held that such agreements will not be enforced if the defendant is found to be grossly negligent. In May 2013, we filed another motion for partial summary judgment seeking to enforce BP’s agreement to release claims made by BP itself and asking the MDL Court to dismiss certain claims BP assigned to PSC as part of their settlement. In its Phase One Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the MDL Court ruled that BP’s agreement to indemnify us and BP’s release of claims against us are valid and enforceable, barring the PSC from pursuing assigned claims against us. This ruling may be subject to appeal under maritime law.

Other legal proceedings

Asbestos litigation—In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21 complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during these plaintiffs’ employment in drilling activities between 1965 and 1986. The Circuit Courts subsequently dismissed the original 21 multi-plaintiff complaints and required each plaintiff to file a separate lawsuit. After certain individual claims were dismissed, 593 separate lawsuits remained, each with a single plaintiff. We have or may have direct or indirect interest in a total of 20 cases in Mississippi. The complaints generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos-containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with drilling operations and have included allegations of negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. In each of these cases, the complaints have named other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that contained asbestos. With the exception of cases pending in Jones and Jefferson counties, these cases are being governed for discovery and trial setting by a single Case Management Order entered by a Special Master appointed by the court to preside over the cases. Of the 20 cases in which we have or may have an interest, two have been scheduled for trial. During the year ended December 31, 2013, one of these two cases was resolved through a negotiated settlement for a nominal sum. In the other case, we were not named as a direct defendant, but the Special Master granted a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the absence of medical evidence in favor of all defendants. We have obtained a similar ruling on summary judgment dismissing three additional cases where we were a direct defendant. The resolution of these five cases leaves 15 remaining lawsuits in Mississippi in which we have or may have an interest.

In 2011, the Special Master issued a ruling that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages, and this ruling has now been obtained in three of our cases. To date, seven of the 593 cases have gone to trial against defendants who allegedly manufactured or distributed drilling mud additives. None of these cases has involved an individual Jones Act employer, and we have not been a defendant in any of these cases.

During the year ended December 31, 2013, a group of lawsuits premised on the same allegations as those in Mississippi were filed in Louisiana. Four of the original cases were dismissed through early motions. As of September 30, 2014, 20 plaintiffs have claims pending against one or more of our subsidiaries in four different lawsuits in Louisiana. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no assurance as to the outcome. We historically have maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

One of our subsidiaries was involved in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary’s involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its litigation, with its insurers and, either directly or indirectly through a qualified settlement fund. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of September 30, 2014, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 881 lawsuits, some of which include multiple plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately 1,692 plaintiffs in these lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against the subsidiary in 1990. Through September 30, 2014, the costs incurred to resolve claims, including both defense fees and expenses and settlement costs, have not been material, all known deductibles have been satisfied or are inapplicable, and the subsidiary’s defense fees and expenses and settlement costs have been met by insurance made available to the subsidiary. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional lawsuits, and we cannot predict the number of additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can we predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to resolve the pending cases. However, the subsidiary has in excess of $1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the subsidiary. Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary will have sufficient funding directly or indirectly from settlements and claims payments from insurers, assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with insurers to respond to these claims. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not believe that the ultimate liability, if any, arising from these claims will have a material impact on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Rio de Janeiro tax assessment—In the third quarter of 2006, we received tax assessments of BRL 415 million, equivalent to approximately $170 million, including interest and penalties, from the state tax authorities of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil against one of our Brazilian subsidiaries for taxes on equipment imported into the state in connection with our operations. The assessments resulted from a preliminary finding by these authorities that our record keeping practices were deficient. We currently believe that the substantial majority of these assessments are without merit. We filed an initial response with the Rio de Janeiro tax authorities on September 9, 2006 refuting these additional tax assessments. In September 2007, we received confirmation from the state tax authorities that they believe the additional tax assessments are valid, and as a result, we filed an appeal on September 27, 2007 to the state Taxpayer’s Council contesting these assessments. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the final outcome of these proceedings, we do not expect it to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Brazilian import license assessment—In the fourth quarter of 2010, we received an assessment from the Brazilian federal tax authorities in Rio de Janeiro of BRL 552 million, equivalent to approximately $226 million, including interest and penalties, based upon the alleged failure to timely apply for import licenses for certain equipment and for allegedly providing improper information on import license applications. We believe that a substantial majority of the assessment is without merit and are vigorously pursuing legal remedies. The case was decided partially in favor of our Brazilian subsidiary in the lower administrative court level. The decision cancelled the majority of the assessment, reducing the total assessment to BRL 34 million, equivalent to approximately $14 million. On July 14, 2011, we filed an appeal to eliminate the assessment. On May 23, 2013, a ruling was issued that eliminated all assessment amounts. A further appeal by the taxing authorities is possible. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these proceedings, we do not expect it to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Petrobras withholding taxes—In July 2014, we received letters from Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (“Petrobras”) informing us that the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service (the “RFB”) is assessing Petrobras for withholding taxes presumably due and unpaid on payments made in 2008 and 2009 to beneficiaries domiciled outside of Brazil in connection with the charter agreements related to work performed by its contractors, including us. Petrobras is challenging such tax assessment and has indicated that, if it loses the tax dispute, it will seek to recover from its contractors, including us, any taxes, penalties, interest and fees that Petrobras is being requested to pay. Petrobras has informed us that it has received from the RFB notices of deficiencies for BRL 283 million, equivalent to approximately $116 million, excluding penalties, interest and fees, related to work performed by us. We have informed Petrobras that we believe it has no basis for seeking reimbursement from us, and we intend to vigorously challenge any assertions to the contrary. An unfavorable outcome on these matters could result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Nigerian Cabotage Act litigation—In October 2007, three of our subsidiaries were each served a Notice and Demand from the Nigeria Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, imposing a two percent surcharge on the value of all contracts performed by us in Nigeria pursuant to the Coastal and Inland Shipping (Cabotage) Act 2003 (the “Cabotage Act”). Our subsidiaries each filed an originating summons in the Federal High Court in Lagos challenging the imposition of this surcharge on the basis that the Cabotage Act and associated levy is not applicable to drilling rigs. The respondents challenged the competence of the suits on several procedural grounds. The court upheld the objections and dismissed the suits. In December 2010, our subsidiaries filed a new joint Cabotage Act suit. The Federal High Court in Lagos has scheduled the matter for hearing on January 22, 2015. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these proceedings, we do not expect it to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Other matters—We are involved in various tax matters, various regulatory matters, and a number of claims and lawsuits, asserted and unasserted, all of which have arisen in the ordinary course of our business. We do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these other matters to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We cannot predict with certainty the outcome or effect of any of the litigation matters specifically described above or of any such other pending, threatened, or possible litigation or liability. We can provide no assurance that our beliefs or expectations as to the outcome or effect of any tax, regulatory, lawsuit or other litigation matter will prove correct and the eventual outcome of these matters could materially differ from management’s current estimates.

Other environmental matters

Hazardous waste disposal sites—We have certain potential liabilities under CERCLA and similar state acts regulating cleanup of various hazardous waste disposal sites, including those described below. CERCLA is intended to expedite the remediation of hazardous substances without regard to fault. Potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) for each site include present and former owners and operators of, transporters to and generators of the substances at the site. Liability is strict and can be joint and several.

We have been named as a PRP in connection with a site located in Santa Fe Springs, California, known as the Waste Disposal, Inc. site. We and other PRPs have agreed with the EPA and the DOJ to settle our potential liabilities for this site by agreeing to perform the remaining remediation required by the EPA. The form of the agreement is a consent decree, which has been entered by the court. The parties to the settlement have entered into a participation agreement, which makes us liable for approximately eight percent of the remediation and related costs. The remediation is complete, and we believe our share of the future operation and maintenance costs of the site is not material. There are additional potential liabilities related to the site, but these cannot be quantified, and we have no reason at this time to believe that they will be material.

One of our subsidiaries has been ordered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (“CRWQCB”) to develop a testing plan for a site known as Campus 1000 Fremont in Alhambra, California. This site was formerly owned and operated by certain of our subsidiaries. It is presently owned by an unrelated party, which has received an order to test the property. We have also been advised that one or more of our subsidiaries is likely to be named by the EPA as a PRP for the San Gabriel Valley, Area 3, Superfund site, which includes this property. Testing has been completed at the property, but no contaminants of concern were detected. In discussions with CRWQCB staff, we were advised of their intent to issue us a “no further action” letter, but it has not yet been received. Based on the test results, we would contest any potential liability. We have no knowledge at this time of the potential cost of any remediation, who else will be named as PRPs, and whether in fact any of our subsidiaries is a responsible party. The subsidiaries in question do not own any operating assets and have limited ability to respond to any liabilities.

On February 24, 2011, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (“HACLA”) filed an original complaint against multiple defendants for releases of hazardous substances and other hazardous materials based on prior use of a site it now owns between the late 1930s and 2008. HACLA seeks recovery for response costs and other damages resulting from the release of those hazardous substances and materials. On September 20, 2013, one of the third-party defendants filed claims against one of our subsidiaries as a fourth party defendant asserting cost recovery and contribution under CERCLA, contribution pursuant to California Health and Safety Code, equitable contribution and indemnity and declaratory judgment. Our subsidiary never owned or leased the site, and our subsidiary’s involvement at the site was primarily related to the demolition, excavation and grading of the site between 1979 and 1980. On May 23, 2014, our subsidiary and its insurer agreed to settle the matter with the third-party defendant, and on August 1, 2014, the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California entered an order barring all persons and entities from pursuing claims or causes of action against our subsidiary arising from this litigation and, accordingly, our subsidiary was dismissed from the lawsuit.

Resolutions of other claims by the EPA, the involved state agency or PRPs are at various stages of investigation. These investigations involve determinations of:

· the actual responsibility attributed to us and the other PRPs at the site;

· appropriate investigatory or remedial actions; and

· allocation of the costs of such activities among the PRPs and other site users.

Our ultimate financial responsibility in connection with those sites may depend on many factors, including:

· the volume and nature of material, if any, contributed to the site for which we are responsible;

· the number of other PRPs and their financial viability; and

· the remediation methods and technology to be used.

It is difficult to quantify with certainty the potential cost of these environmental matters, particularly in respect of remediation obligations. Nevertheless, based upon the information currently available, we believe that our ultimate liability arising from all environmental matters, including the liability for all other related pending legal proceedings, asserted legal claims and known potential legal claims which are likely to be asserted, is adequately accrued and should not have a material effect on our consolidated statement of financial position or results of operations.

Retained risk

Overview—Our hull and machinery and excess liability insurance program is comprised of commercial market and captive insurance policies that we renew annually on May 1. We periodically evaluate our insurance limits and self-insured retentions. At September 30, 2014, the insured value of our drilling rig fleet was approximately $27.8 billion, excluding our rigs under construction.

We generally do not carry commercial market insurance coverage for loss of revenues, unless it is contractually required, or for losses resulting from physical damage to our fleet caused by named windstorms in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, including liability for wreck removal costs.

Hull and machinery coverage—At September 30, 2014, under the hull and machinery program, we generally maintained a $125 million per occurrence deductible, limited to a maximum of $200 million per policy period. Subject to the same shared deductible, we also had coverage for an amount equal to 50 percent of a rig’s insured value for combined costs incurred to mitigate rig damage, wreck or debris removal and collision liability. Any excess wreck or debris removal costs and excess collision liability costs are generally covered to the extent of our remaining excess liability coverage.

Excess liability coverage—At September 30, 2014, we carried excess liability coverage of $700 million in the commercial market excluding deductibles and self-insured retention, noted below, which generally covers offshore risks such as personal injury, third-party property claims, and third-party non-crew claims, including wreck removal and pollution. Our excess liability coverage had separate $10 million per occurrence deductibles on collision liability claims and $5 million per occurrence deductibles on crew personal injury claims and on other third-party non-crew claims. Through our wholly owned captive insurance company, we retained the risk of the primary $50 million excess liability coverage. In addition, we generally retained the risk for any liability losses in excess of $750 million.

Other insurance coverage—At September 30, 2014, we also carried $100 million of additional insurance that generally covers expenses that would otherwise be assumed by the well owner, such as costs to control the well, redrill expenses and pollution from the well. This additional insurance provides coverage for such expenses in circumstances in which we have legal or contractual liability arising from our gross negligence or willful misconduct.

Letters of credit and surety bonds

At September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, we had outstanding letters of credit totaling $418 million and $575 million, respectively, issued under various committed and uncommitted credit lines provided by several banks to guarantee various contract bidding, performance activities and customs obligations, including letters of credit totaling $89 million and $104 million, respectively, that we agreed to maintain in support of the operations for Shelf Drilling (see Note 7—Discontinued Operations).

As is customary in the contract drilling business, we also have various surety bonds in place that secure customs obligations relating to the importation of our rigs and certain performance and other obligations. At September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, we had outstanding surety bonds totaling $6 million.