NOTE 14—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Investigations and Litigation

On January 13, 2014, one of our subsidiaries, J. Ray McDermott de Mexico S.A. de C.V. ("JRMM"), filed separate arbitration proceedings against Atlantic Tiburon 1 Pte. Ltd. ("AT1") and Atlantic Tiburon 3 Pte. Ltd. ("AT3") in the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (the "ICC") for damages, including amounts due on unpaid invoices for rig repair work on the drilling rigs Atlantic Tiburon 1 and Atlantic Tiburon 3. On February 26, 2014, AT1 filed a separate arbitration proceeding against JRMM with the ICC generally alleging, among other things, breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, negligence and denial of access to the rigs, and AT3 filed a counterclaim against JRMM with the ICC containing similar allegations to the separate arbitration proceeding filed by AT1. In January 2015, the claims between JRMM and AT3 were resolved by agreement of the parties. In February 2015, the two AT1 arbitrations were consolidated. During the second quarter of 2015, we received AT1’s fact witness statements and expert reports providing further information relating to AT1’s damage claims. AT1’s alleged damage claims were in excess of $170 million, including claims for damages for breach of contract, conversion, usury and duress, as well as consequential damages and/or loss of revenue, as well as additional amounts. In addition, AT1 sought exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On or about October 15, 2015, the parties entered into a binding term sheet providing for settlement of all remaining claims for a total amount of approximately $16.7 million, which amount represents a cash payment and the value of certain services to be rendered by JRMM. Additionally, on November 2, 2015, Termination Orders were signed by the ICC dismissing the arbitration proceedings with prejudice.

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. On September 10, 2015, an Order was signed by the court granting plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.

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 other dispute resolution proceedings 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.

At September 30, 2015, we had total environmental reserves of $1.6 million, all of which was included in current liabilities and related to our plan to discontinue the utilization of our Morgan City fabrication facility. Inherent in the estimates of those 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 September 30, 2015, it is possible that we may incur liabilities for liquidated damages aggregating approximately $31 million, of which approximately $6 million has been recorded in our financial statements, based on our actual or projected failure to meet certain specified contractual milestone dates. We believe we will be successful in obtaining schedule extensions or other customer-agreed changes that should resolve the potential for unaccrued liquidated damages. Accordingly, we believe that no amounts for these unaccrued 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

As of September 30, 2015, we had outstanding obligations related to our new vessel construction contract on the Deepwater Lay Vessel 2000 of $202.5 million in the aggregate, with $22.3 million and $180.2 million due in the years ending December 31, 2015 and 2016, respectively. These obligations exclude capitalized interest.