XML 46 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.20.4
Commitments and Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
LITIGATION
We are subject to legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. Because legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of such matters. We record a liability for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Based on the opinion of management, we do not expect the ultimate outcome of currently pending legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. However, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these matters.
During 2014, we received notification from a customer related to a possible equipment failure in a natural gas storage system in Northern Germany, which includes certain of our products. The customer initiated arbitration proceedings against us on June 19, 2015, under the rules of the German Institute of Arbitration e.V. (DIS). On August 3, 2016, the customer amended its claims and alleged damages of €202 million plus interest at an annual rate of prime + 5%. Hearings before the arbitration panel were held January 16, 2017 through January 23, 2017,
and March 20, 2017 through March 21, 2017. In addition, on September 21, 2015, TRIUVA Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (TRIUVA) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division against the Company and Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. alleging that the plaintiff is the owner of gas storage caverns in Etzel, Germany in which the Company provided certain equipment in connection with the development of the gas storage caverns. The plaintiff further alleges that the Company supplied equipment that was either defectively designed or failed to warn of risks that the equipment posed, and that these alleged defects caused damage to the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff seeks recovery of alleged compensatory and punitive damages of an unspecified amount, in addition to reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The allegations in this lawsuit are related to the claims made in the June 19, 2015 German arbitration referenced above. On June 7, 2018, the DIS arbitration panel issued a confidential Arbitration Ruling, which addressed all claims asserted by the customer. The estimated financial impact of the Arbitration Ruling has been reflected in the Company's financial statements and did not have a material impact. Further, on March 11, 2019, the customer initiated a second arbitral proceeding against us, under the rules of the German Institute of Arbitration e.V. (DIS). The customer alleged damages of €142 million plus interest at an annual rate of prime + 5% since June 20, 2015. The allegations in this second arbitration proceeding are related to the claims made in the June 19, 2015 German arbitration and Houston Federal Court proceedings referenced above. The Company is contesting the claims made by TRIUVA in the Houston Federal Court and the claims made by the customer in the second arbitration proceeding. In October 2020, the DIS notified the Company of a partial award in the second arbitration, which addressed certain of the claims asserted by the customer. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of the claims asserted in the Houston Federal Court or the claims that remain pending in the second arbitration.
In January 2013, INEOS and Naphtachimie initiated expertise proceedings in Aix-en-Provence, France arising out of a fire at a chemical plant owned by INEOS in Lavera, France, which resulted in a 15-day plant shutdown and destruction of a steam turbine, which was part of a compressor train owned by Naphtachimie. The most recent quantification of the alleged damages is €250 million. Two of the Company's subsidiaries (and 17 other companies) were notified to participate in the proceedings. The proceedings are ongoing, and at this time, there is no indication that the Company's subsidiaries were involved in the incident. Although the outcome of the claims remains uncertain, our insurer has accepted coverage and is defending the Company in the expertise proceeding.
On July 31, 2018, International Engineering & Construction S.A. (IEC) initiated arbitration proceedings in New York administered by the International Center for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) against the Company and its subsidiaries arising out of a series of sales and service contracts entered between IEC and the Company’s subsidiaries for the sale and installation of LNG plants and related power generation equipment in Nigeria (Contracts).  Prior to the filing of the IEC Arbitration, the Company’s subsidiaries made demands for payment due under the Contracts.  On August 15, 2018, the Company’s subsidiaries initiated a separate demand for ICDR arbitration against IEC for claims of additional costs and amounts due under the Contracts.  On October 10, 2018, IEC filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company seeking to compel non-signatory Baker Hughes entities to participate in the arbitration filed by IEC. The complaint is captioned International Engineering & Construction S.A. et al. v. Baker Hughes, a GE company, LLC, et al. No. 18-cv-09241 (S.D.N.Y 2018); this action was dismissed by the Court on August 13, 2019.  In the arbitration, IEC alleges breach of contract and other claims against the Company and its subsidiaries and seeks recovery of alleged compensatory damages, in addition to reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and arbitration costs. On March 15, 2019, IEC amended its request for arbitration to alleged damages of $591 million of lost profits plus unspecified additional costs based on alleged non-performance of the contracts in dispute. The arbitration hearing was held from December 9, 2019 to December 20, 2019. On March 3, 2020, IEC amended their damages claim to $700 million of alleged loss cash flow or, in the alternative, $244.9 million of lost profits and various costs based on alleged non-performance of the contracts in dispute, and in addition $4.8 million of liquidated damages, $58.6 million in take-or-pay costs of feed gas, and unspecified additional costs of rectification and take-or-pay future obligations, plus unspecified interest and attorneys' fees. On May 3, 2020, the arbitration panel dismissed IEC's request for take-or-pay damages. On May 29, 2020, IEC quantified their claim for legal fees at $14.2 million and reduced their alternative claim from $244.9 million to approximately $235 million. The Company and its subsidiaries have contested IEC’s claims and are pursuing claims for compensation under the contracts. On October 31, 2020, the ICDR notified the arbitration panel’s final award, which dismissed the majority of IEC’s claims and awarded a portion of the Company’s claims. On January 27, 2021, IEC filed a petition to vacate the arbitral award in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these proceedings.
On March 15, 2019 and March 18, 2019, the City of Riviera Beach Pension Fund and Richard Schippnick, respectively, filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery shareholder derivative lawsuits for and on the Company’s behalf against GE, the then-current members of the Board of Directors of the Company and the Company as a nominal defendant, related to the decision to (i) terminate the contractual prohibition barring GE from selling any of the Company’s shares before July 3, 2019; (ii) repurchase $1.5 billion in the Company’s stock from GE; (iii) permit GE to sell approximately $2.5 billion in the Company’s stock through a secondary offering; and (iv) enter into a series of other agreements and amendments that will govern the ongoing relationship  between the Company and GE  (collectively, the “2018 Transactions”). The complaints in both lawsuits allege, among other things, that GE, as the Company’s controlling stockholder, and the members of the Company’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the 2018 Transactions.  The relief sought in the complaints includes a request for a declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, that GE was unjustly enriched, disgorgement of profits, an award of damages sustained by the Company, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.  On March 21, 2019, the Chancery Court entered an order consolidating the Schippnick and City of Riviera Beach complaints under consolidated C.A. No. 2019-0201-AGB, styled in re Baker Hughes, a GE company derivative litigation. On May 10, 2019, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the members of the Company’s Conflicts Committee, and on May 15, 2019, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against former Baker Hughes director Martin Craighead. On June 7, 2019, the defendants and nominal defendant filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that the derivative plaintiffs failed to make a demand on the Company’s Board of Directors to pursue the claims itself, and GE and the Company’s Board of Directors filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The Chancery Court denied the motions on October 8, 2019, except granted GE’s motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim against it. On October 31, 2019, the Company’s Board of Directors designated a Special Litigation Committee and empowered it with full authority to investigate and evaluate the allegations and issues raised in the derivative litigation. The Special Litigation Committee filed a motion to stay the derivative litigation during its investigation. On December 3, 2019, the Chancery Court granted the motion and stayed the derivative litigation until June 1, 2020. On May 20, 2020, the Chancery Court granted an extension of the stay to October 1, 2020, and on September 29, 2020, the Court granted a further extension of the stay to October 15, 2020. On October 13, 2020, the Special Litigation Committee filed its report with the Court. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims.
In March 2019, the Company received a document request from the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) related to certain of the Company’s operations in Iraq and its dealings with Unaoil Limited and its affiliates. In December 2019, the Company received a similar document request from the Securities Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). The Company is cooperating with the DOJ and the SEC in connection with their requests and any related matters. In addition, the Company has agreed to toll any statute of limitations in connection with the matters subject to the DOJ’s document request.
On August 13, 2019, Tri-State Joint Fund filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on the behalf of itself and all similarly situated public stockholders of Baker Hughes Incorporated (“BHI”) against the General Electric Company (GE), the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, and certain former BHI Officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and other claims in connection with the combination of BHI and the oil and gas business (GE O&G) of GE (the Transactions). On October 28, 2019, City of Providence filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on behalf of itself and all similarly situated public shareholders of BHI against GE, the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, and certain former BHI Officers alleging substantially the same claims in connection with the Transactions. The relief sought in these complaints include a request for a declaration that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, an award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The lawsuits have been consolidated, and plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on December 17, 2019 against certain former BHI officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and against GE for aiding and abetting those breaches. The December 2019 complaint omitted the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, except for Mr. Craighead who also served as President and CEO of BHI. Mr. Craighead and Ms. Ross, who served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of BHI, remain named in the December 2019 complaint along with GE. The relief sought in the consolidated complaint includes a declaration that the former BHI officers breached their fiduciary duties and that GE aided and abetted those breaches, an award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On or around February 12, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. On or around
October 27, 2020, the Chancery Court granted GE’s motion to dismiss, and granted in part the motion to dismiss filed by Mr. Craighead and Ms. Ross, thereby dismissing all of the claims against GE and Ms. Ross, and all but one of the claims against Mr. Craighead. At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of the remaining claim.
On December 11, 2019, BMC Software, Inc. (“BMC”) filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of Texas against Baker Hughes, a GE company, LLC alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment, arising out of the Company’s use of its new logo and affiliated branding. On January 1, 2020, BMC amended its complaint to add Baker Hughes Company. The relief sought in the complaint includes a request for injunctive relief, an award of damages (including punitive damages), pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.  At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims.
In December 2020, the Company received notice that the SEC is conducting a formal investigation that the Company understands is related to its books and records and internal controls regarding sales of its products and services in projects impacted by U.S. sanctions. The Company is cooperating with the SEC and providing requested information. The Company has also initiated an internal review with the assistance of external legal counsel regarding internal controls and compliance related to U.S. sanctions requirements. The SEC's investigation and the Company's internal review are ongoing, and the Company cannot anticipate the timing, outcome or possible impact of the investigation or review, financial or otherwise.
We insure against risks arising from our business to the extent deemed prudent by our management and to the extent insurance is available, but no assurance can be given that the nature and amount of that insurance will be sufficient to fully indemnify us against liabilities arising out of pending or future legal proceedings or other claims. Most of our insurance policies contain deductibles or self-insured retentions in amounts we deem prudent and for which we are responsible for payment. In determining the amount of self-insurance, it is our policy to self-insure those losses that are predictable, measurable and recurring in nature, such as claims for automobile liability, general liability and workers compensation.
ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
Item 103 of SEC Regulation S-K requires disclosure of certain environmental matters when a governmental authority is a party to the proceedings and such proceedings involve potential monetary sanctions that the Company reasonably believes will exceed a specified threshold. Pursuant to recent SEC amendments to this item, the Company will be using a threshold of $1 million for such proceedings. Applying this threshold, there are no environmental matters to disclose for this period.
Estimated remediation costs are accrued using currently available facts, existing environmental permits, technology and enacted laws and regulations. Our cost estimates are developed based on internal evaluations and are not discounted. Accruals are recorded when it is probable that we will be obligated to pay for environmental site evaluation, remediation or related activities, and such costs can be reasonably estimated. As additional information becomes available, accruals are adjusted to reflect current cost estimates. Ongoing environmental compliance costs, such as obtaining or renewing environmental permits, installation of pollution control equipment and waste disposal are expensed as incurred. Where we have been identified as a potentially responsible party in a U.S. federal or state Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund) site, we accrue our share, if known, of the estimated remediation costs of the site. This share is based on the ratio of the estimated volume of waste we contributed to the site to the total volume of waste disposed at the site.
OTHER
In the normal course of business with customers, vendors and others, we have entered into off-balance sheet arrangements, such as surety bonds for performance, letters of credit and other bank issued guarantees, which totaled approximately $4.1 billion at December 31, 2020. It is not practicable to estimate the fair value of these financial instruments. None of the off-balance sheet arrangements either has, or is likely to have, a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We also had commitments outstanding for purchase obligations for each of the five years in the period ending December 31, 2025 of $838 million, $86 million, $37 million, $8 million and $5 million, respectively, and $18 million in the aggregate thereafter.
We sometimes enter into consortium or similar arrangements for certain projects primarily in our Oilfield Equipment segment. Under such arrangements, each party is responsible for performing a certain scope of work within the total scope of the contracted work, and the obligations expire when all contractual obligations are completed. The failure or inability, financially or otherwise, of any of the parties to perform their obligations could impose additional costs and obligations on us. These factors could result in unanticipated costs to complete the project, liquidated damages or contract disputes.