Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 7 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES *Investigations and Litigation* *Berlin Station* Our subsidiary, Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co., Inc. (“BWCC”), is currently in a dispute with a customer in connection with a 75MW biomass-energy power plant that BWCC designed and built in Berlin, New Hampshire. The dispute primarily concerns material claims by BWCC against its customer for contract changes relating to schedule delays, delay costs, extra work, withheld payments, improper draws on letters of credit, withheld contract-retention amounts, as well as fraud and misrepresentation. The customer has made nine partial draws totaling approximately $11.0 million under letters of credit that were outstanding in connection with the project. These draws correspond to a total of approximately $11.9 million in alleged liquidated damages for delay (“Delay LDs”) on the project. Following the customer’s denial of BWCC’s change order request relating to schedule delays, delay costs and extra work incurred up to that time, on January 16, 2014, BWCC filed suit against the customer in the Court of Common Pleas, Summit County, Ohio, Case No. 2014 01 0208, seeking damages in excess of $37 million (the “Ohio suit”). On or about January 30, 2014, BWCC’s customer filed suit against BWCC in the Superior Court of Coos County, New Hampshire, Case No. 214-2014-CV-14 alleging breach of contract and seeking unspecified amounts (the “New Hampshire suit”) which was subsequently transferred to the New Hampshire business/commercial court division. On June 26, 2014, the Ohio suit was dismissed on jurisdictional and forum non conveniens grounds. On August 29, 2014, BWCC filed its Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim in the New Hampshire suit seeking recovery of damages. Damages claimed and incurred to date are at least $70 million in connection with all matters currently in dispute. Given the customer’s prior wrongful acts, there is a risk that the customer will attempt to call all or part of the remaining $21.9 million of letters of credit during the pendency of this matter. We believe any such call would be wrongful and entitle us to a return of the funds drawn and other damages. We have made provisions in our financial statements as disclosed in Note 1 for Delay LDs called to date against the letters of credit and have not recorded offsetting claims revenue related to these calls in our financial statements. We believe BWCC has sound legal and factual bases for its claims. BWCC intends to aggressively pursue recovery on its claims, including recovery of the wrongful calls against BWCC’s letters of credit. However, it is premature to predict the outcome of this matter. The litigation could be lengthy, and if BWCC’s customer were to prevail completely or substantially in this matter, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on our financial statements. *ARPA* On February 28, 2014, Arkansas River Power Authority (“ARPA”) filed suit against Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. (“PGG OpCo”) in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (Case No. 14-cv-00638-CMA-NYW) alleging breach of contract, negligence, fraud and other claims arising out of PGG OpCo’s delivery of a circulating fluidized bed (“CFB”) boiler and related equipment used in the Lamar Repowering Project pursuant to a 2005 contract. In 2009, PGG OpCo informed ARPA that the boiler would require a selective non-catalytic reduction system in order to achieve contractual emissions guarantees, which PGG OpCo supplied in 2010. PGG OpCo recommended additional modifications in 2011 and 2012 to ensure the boiler would meet contractual emissions guarantees; however, ARPA has not installed all of the recommended modifications. ARPA has not confirmed whether it intends to complete and commission the Lamar plant. On April 16, 2014, PGG OpCo filed an Answer asserting numerous defenses, including waiver, prevention of performance and failure to mitigate damages and Counterclaims alleging bad faith, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. ARPA filed an Answer to the Counterclaims on May 7, 2014. The District Court granted leave for ARPA to amend its Complaint, and ARPA’s First Amended Complaint was accepted on March 20, 2015. PGG OpCo filed its Answer to the First Amended Complaint on April 1, 2015. Discovery is ongoing and a trial date has not been set. We believe that ARPA has asserted damages theories that are highly speculative and without legal or economic support as a litigation tactic. We also believe most of the alleged damages are expressly waived and/or capped in enforceable provisions of the 2005 contract. We cannot estimate the possible loss at this time. However, in addition to establishing other relevant sub-caps and including an explicit waiver of a broad range of damages, including consequential damages, the 2005 contract provides an overall cap of liability at the original contract price of approximately $20.5 million. ARPA has alleged various theories of possible liability and damages that would lead to vastly different measures of damages, making it impracticable to estimate a range of possible outcomes; however, ARPA’s damage claims total approximately $170 million. PGG OpCo does not believe it is probable that ARPA will be successful in any of its claims. PGG OpCo believes it has strong defenses and intends to aggressively defend this matter and pursue its counterclaims. However, if ARPA were to prevail on all or any significant portion of its claims in this matter, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. *Other Litigation and Settlements* On December 17, 2014, an unfavorable jury verdict was delivered against BWC, PGG OpCo, Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy, Inc. (a subsidiary of BWC that is not part of BW), and Babcock & Wilcox Canada Ltd (a BWC subsidiary that is not part of BW) (collectively, the “BWC Parties”) in a case entitled AREVA NP, INC. f/k/a Framatome ANP, Inc. v. The Babcock & Wilcox Company, et. al. in the amount of approximately $16 million. The BWC Parties strongly disagree with the verdict and believe the plaintiff’s claims are without merit. The BWC Parties have filed a post-trial motion requesting that the verdict be set aside or a new trial granted. On March 5, 2015, the trial court denied a post-trial motion requesting that the verdict be set aside or a new trial granted. The BWC Parties have filed a notice of appeal with the Virginia Supreme Court. The case was filed August 26, 2011 in the Circuit Court for the City of Lynchburg, Commonwealth of Virginia and alleged that the BWC Parties to the suit owed royalties on certain commercial nuclear contracts performed by BWC and certain of its subsidiaries since 2004. Under the terms of the spin-off, the former Parent has agreed to indemnify BW in full from any losses in this matter.

NOTE 7 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Investigations and Litigation

Berlin Station

Our subsidiary, Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co., Inc. (“BWCC”), is currently in a dispute with a customer in connection with a 75MW biomass-energy power plant that BWCC designed and built in Berlin, New Hampshire. The dispute primarily concerns material claims by BWCC against its customer for contract changes relating to schedule delays, delay costs, extra work, withheld payments, improper draws on letters of credit, withheld contract-retention amounts, as well as fraud and misrepresentation. The customer has made nine partial draws totaling approximately $11.0 million under letters of credit that were outstanding in connection with the project. These draws correspond to a total of approximately $11.9 million in alleged liquidated damages for delay (“Delay LDs”) on the project.

Following the customer’s denial of BWCC’s change order request relating to schedule delays, delay costs and extra work incurred up to that time, on January 16, 2014, BWCC filed suit against the customer in the Court of Common Pleas, Summit County, Ohio, Case No. 2014 01 0208, seeking damages in excess of $37 million (the “Ohio suit”). On or about January 30, 2014, BWCC’s customer filed suit against BWCC in the Superior Court of Coos County, New Hampshire, Case No. 214-2014-CV-14 alleging breach of contract and seeking unspecified amounts (the “New Hampshire suit”) which was subsequently transferred to the New Hampshire business/commercial court division. On June 26, 2014, the Ohio suit was dismissed on jurisdictional and forum non conveniens grounds. On August 29, 2014, BWCC filed its Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim in the New Hampshire suit seeking recovery of damages. Damages claimed and incurred to date are at least $70 million in connection with all matters currently in dispute.

Given the customer’s prior wrongful acts, there is a risk that the customer will attempt to call all or part of the remaining $21.9 million of letters of credit during the pendency of this matter. We believe any such call would be wrongful and entitle us to a return of the funds drawn and other damages. We have made provisions in our financial statements as disclosed in Note 1 for Delay LDs called to date against the letters of credit and have not recorded offsetting claims revenue related to these calls in our financial statements.

We believe BWCC has sound legal and factual bases for its claims. BWCC intends to aggressively pursue recovery on its claims, including recovery of the wrongful calls against BWCC’s letters of credit. However, it is premature to predict the outcome of this matter. The litigation could be lengthy, and if BWCC’s customer were to prevail completely or substantially in this matter, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on our financial statements.

ARPA

On February 28, 2014, Arkansas River Power Authority (“ARPA”) filed suit against Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. (“PGG OpCo”) in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (Case No. 14-cv-00638-CMA-NYW) alleging breach of contract, negligence, fraud and other claims arising out of PGG OpCo’s delivery of a circulating fluidized bed (“CFB”) boiler and related equipment used in the Lamar Repowering Project pursuant to a 2005 contract.

In 2009, PGG OpCo informed ARPA that the boiler would require a selective non-catalytic reduction system in order to achieve contractual emissions guarantees, which PGG OpCo supplied in 2010. PGG OpCo recommended additional modifications in 2011 and 2012 to ensure the boiler would meet contractual emissions guarantees; however, ARPA has not installed all of the recommended modifications. ARPA has not confirmed whether it intends to complete and commission the Lamar plant.

On April 16, 2014, PGG OpCo filed an Answer asserting numerous defenses, including waiver, prevention of performance and failure to mitigate damages and Counterclaims alleging bad faith, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. ARPA filed an Answer to the Counterclaims on May 7, 2014. The District Court granted leave for ARPA to amend its Complaint, and ARPA’s First Amended Complaint was accepted on March 20, 2015. PGG OpCo filed its Answer to the First Amended Complaint on April 1, 2015. Discovery is ongoing and a trial date has not been set.

We believe that ARPA has asserted damages theories that are highly speculative and without legal or economic support as a litigation tactic. We also believe most of the alleged damages are expressly waived and/or capped in enforceable provisions of the 2005 contract. We cannot estimate the possible loss at this time. However, in addition to establishing other relevant sub-caps and including an explicit waiver of a broad range of damages, including consequential damages, the 2005 contract provides an overall cap of liability at the original contract price of approximately $20.5 million. ARPA has alleged various theories of possible liability and damages that would lead to vastly different measures of damages, making it impracticable to estimate a range of possible outcomes; however, ARPA’s damage claims total approximately $170 million. PGG OpCo does not believe it is probable that ARPA will be successful in any of its claims. PGG OpCo believes it has strong defenses and intends to aggressively defend this matter and pursue its counterclaims. However, if ARPA were to prevail on all or any significant portion of its claims in this matter, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

Other Litigation and Settlements

On December 17, 2014, an unfavorable jury verdict was delivered against BWC, PGG OpCo, Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy, Inc. (a subsidiary of BWC that is not part of BW), and Babcock & Wilcox Canada Ltd (a BWC subsidiary that is not part of BW) (collectively, the “BWC Parties”) in a case entitled AREVA NP, INC. f/k/a Framatome ANP, Inc. v. The Babcock & Wilcox Company, et. al. in the amount of approximately $16 million. The BWC Parties strongly disagree with the verdict and believe the plaintiff’s claims are without merit. The BWC Parties have filed a post-trial motion requesting that the verdict be set aside or a new trial granted. On March 5, 2015, the trial court denied a post-trial motion requesting that the verdict be set aside or a new trial granted. The BWC Parties have filed a notice of appeal with the Virginia Supreme Court. The case was filed August 26, 2011 in the Circuit Court for the City of Lynchburg, Commonwealth of Virginia and alleged that the BWC Parties to the suit owed royalties on certain commercial nuclear contracts performed by BWC and certain of its subsidiaries since 2004. Under the terms of the spin-off, the former Parent has agreed to indemnify BW in full from any losses in this matter.