NOTE 12—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Investigations and Litigation

On or about August 23, 2004, a declaratory judgment action entitled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al. v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc. et al., was filed by certain underwriters at Lloyd’s, London and Threadneedle Insurance Company Limited (the “London Insurers”), in the 23rd Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish, Louisiana, against MII, J. Ray McDermott, Inc. (“JRMI”) and two insurer defendants, Travelers and INA, seeking a declaration that the London Insurers have no obligation to indemnify MII and JRMI for certain bodily injury claims, including claims for asbestos and welding rod fume personal injury which have been filed by claimants in various state courts. Additionally, Travelers filed a cross-claim requesting a declaration of non-coverage in approximately 20 underlying matters. This proceeding was stayed by the Court on January 3, 2005. We do not believe an adverse judgment or material losses in this matter are probable, and, accordingly, we have not accrued any amounts relating to this contingency. Although there is a possibility of an adverse judgment, the amount or potential range of loss is not estimable at this time. The insurer-plaintiffs in this matter commenced this proceeding in a purported attempt to obtain a determination of insurance coverage obligations for occupational exposure and/or environmental matters for which we have given notice that we could potentially seek coverage. Because estimating losses would require, for every matter, known and unknown, on a case by case basis, anticipating what impact on coverage a judgment would have and a determination of an otherwise expected insured value, damages cannot be reasonably estimated.

On December 16, 2005, a proceeding entitled Antoine, et al. vs. J. Ray McDermott, Inc., et al. (“Antoine Suit”), was filed in the 24th Judicial District Court, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, by approximately 88 plaintiffs against approximately 215 defendants, including our subsidiaries formerly known as JRMI and Delta Hudson Engineering Corporation (“DHEC”), generally alleging injuries for exposure to asbestos, and unspecified chemicals, metals and noise while the plaintiffs were allegedly employed as Jones Act seamen. This case was dismissed by the Court on January 10, 2007, without prejudice to plaintiffs’ rights to refile their claims. On January 29, 2007, 21 plaintiffs from the dismissed Antoine Suit filed a matter entitled Boudreaux, et al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al. (the “Boudreaux Suit”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, against JRMI and our subsidiary formerly known as McDermott Incorporated, and approximately 30 other employer defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status and generally alleging exposure to welding fumes, solvents, dyes, industrial paints and noise. The Boudreaux Suit was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on May 2, 2007, which entered an order in September 2007 staying the matter until further order of the Court due to the bankruptcy filing of one of the co-defendants. On June 18, 2014, the Boudreaux Suit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On January 29, 2007, another 43 plaintiffs from the dismissed Antoine Suit filed a matter entitled Antoine, et al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al. (the “New Antoine Suit”), in the 164th Judicial District Court for Harris County, Texas, against JRMI, our subsidiary formerly known as McDermott Incorporated and approximately 65 other employer defendants and 42 maritime products defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status and generally alleging personal injuries for exposure to asbestos and noise. On April 27, 2007, the District Court entered an order staying all activity and deadlines in the New Antoine Suit, other than service of process and answer/appearance dates, until further order of the Court. The New Antoine Suit plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay on February 20, 2009, which is pending before the Texas District Court. On April 4, 2014, 20 of the plaintiffs in the New Antoine Suit voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice. The remaining plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys’ fees. We cannot reasonably estimate the extent of a potential judgment against us, if any, and we intend to vigorously defend this suit.

On August 15, 2013 and August 20, 2013, two separate alleged purchasers of our common stock filed purported class action complaints against us, Stephen M. Johnson and Perry L. Elders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Both of the complaints sought to represent a class of purchasers of our stock between November 6, 2012 and August 5, 2013, and alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading information and failing to disclose material information relating to weaknesses in project bidding and execution, poor risk evaluation, poor project management and losses in each of our reporting segments. Each complaint sought relief, including unspecified compensatory damages and an award for attorneys’ fees and other costs. By order dated December 5, 2013, the District Court consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 6, 2014. The consolidated amended complaint asserts substantially the same claims as were made in the two original complaints, with some additional factual allegations, and purports to extend the class period to August 6, 2013. It also seeks relief, including unspecified compensatory damages and an award for attorneys’ fees and other costs. On April 7, 2014, MII and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. On May 22, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and MII and the other defendants filed a reply in support of the defendants’ motion to dismiss on June 23, 2014. The motion to dismiss is still pending before the District Court. We believe the substantive allegations contained in the consolidated amended complaint are without merit, and we intend to defend against these claims vigorously.

Additionally, due to the nature of our business, we and our affiliates are, from time to time, involved in litigation or subject to disputes or claims related to our business activities, including, among other things:

·	performance—or warranty-related matters under our customer and supplier contracts and other business arrangements; and

·	workers’ compensation claims, Jones Act claims, occupational hazard claims, including asbestos-exposure claims, premises liability claims and other claims.

Based upon our prior experience, we do not expect that any of these other litigation proceedings, disputes and claims will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows; however, because of the inherent uncertainty of litigation and, in some cases, the availability and amount of potentially applicable insurance, we can provide no assurance that the resolution of any particular claim or proceeding to which we are a party will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows for the fiscal period in which that resolution occurs.

Environmental Matters

We have been identified as a potentially responsible party at various cleanup sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”). CERCLA and other environmental laws can impose liability for the entire cost of cleanup on any of the potentially responsible parties, regardless of fault or the lawfulness of the original conduct. Generally, however, where there are multiple responsible parties, a final allocation of costs is made based on the amount and type of wastes disposed of by each party and the number of financially viable parties, although this may not be the case with respect to any particular site. We have not been determined to be a major contributor of wastes to any of these sites. On the basis of our relative contribution of waste to each site, we expect our share of the ultimate liability for the various sites will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any given year.

As of December 31, 2014, we had total environmental reserves of $3.7 million, all which was included in current liabilities. At December 31, 2013, we had total environmental reserves of $6.3 million. Our environmental reserves are primarily reserves related to our Morgan City facility, which we established in connection with our plan to discontinue the utilization of this facility. Inherent in our estimates of environmental reserves are our expectations regarding the levels of contamination and remediation costs, which may vary significantly as remediation activities progress. Accordingly, changes in estimates could result in material adjustments to our operating results, and the ultimate loss may differ materially from the amounts we have provided for in our consolidated financial statements.

Contracts Containing Liquidated Damages Provisions

Some of our contracts contain provisions that require us to pay liquidated damages if we are responsible for the failure to meet specified contractual milestone dates and the applicable customer asserts a claim under those provisions. Those contracts define the conditions under which our customers may make claims against us for liquidated damages. In many cases in which we have historically had potential exposure for liquidated damages, such damages ultimately were not asserted by our customers. As of December 31, 2014, it is possible that we may incur liabilities for liquidated damages aggregating approximately $118.5 million, of which approximately $28.0 million has been recorded in our financial statements, based on our actual or projected failure to meet certain specified contractual milestone dates. The dates for which these potential liquidated damages could arise extend to July 2015. We believe we will be successful in obtaining schedule extensions or other customer-agreed changes that should resolve the potential for additional liquidated damages. Accordingly, we believe that no amounts for these potential liquidated damages in excess of the amounts currently reflected in our financial statements are probable of being paid by us. However, we may not achieve relief on some or all of the issues involved and, as a result, could be subject to higher damage amounts.

Contractual Obligations

At December 31, 2014, we had outstanding obligations related to our vessel construction contracts on the CSV 108 and DLV 2000 of approximately $253.8 million, all of which is due in 2015. - -

Operating Leases

Future minimum payments required under operating leases that have initial or remaining noncancellable lease terms in excess of one year at December 31, 2014 are as follows (in thousands):

Fiscal Year Ending December 31,	Amount
2015	$	25,051
2016	$	18,531
2017	$	15,155
2018	$	11,457
2019	$	12,288
Thereafter	$	127,373

Total rental expense for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 was $106.5 million, $116.6 million and $60.7 million, respectively. These expense amounts include contingent rentals and are net of sublease income, neither of which is material.