XML 20 R12.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.3.0.15
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
6 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] 
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Note 7 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Aircraft Purchase Contracts — As shown in the table below, we expect to make additional capital expenditures over the next five fiscal years to purchase additional aircraft. As of September 30, 2011, we had 10 aircraft on order and options to acquire an additional 37 aircraft. Although a similar number of our existing aircraft may be sold during the same period, the additional aircraft on order will provide incremental fleet capacity in terms of revenue and operating income.

 

     Six Months Ending Fiscal Year Ending March 31,   
     March 31, 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 and thereafter Total
 Commitments as of September 30, 2011:                  
  Number of aircraft:                   
   Large (1)(2)(3)  4  6  0  0  0  10
      4  6  0  0  0  10
   Related expenditures (in thousands) (4) $119,894 $72,061 $0 $0 $0 $191,955
                      
 Options as of September 30, 2011:                  
  Number of aircraft:                   
   Medium   0  2  4  6  0  12
   Large   0  3  7  4  11  25
      0  5  11  10  11  37
   Related expenditures (in thousands) (4) $62,939 $190,158 $239,964 $189,251 $268,942 $951,254

_________

 

(1)  Signed client contracts are currently in place for 6 of these aircraft.
  
(2)  Includes 4 aircraft with delivery dates in fiscal year 2013 that are cancellable until November 15, 2011 with penalties of $0.8 million each.
  
(3)  Subsequent to September 30, 2011, we entered into agreements to purchase or lease 8 new technology large aircraft for approximately $144 million that are not reflected in the table above.
  
(4)  Includes progress payments on aircraft scheduled to be delivered in future periods.

The following chart presents an analysis of our aircraft orders and options during fiscal year 2012:

 

    Three Months Ended 
    September 30, 2011  June 30, 2011 
    Orders Options  Orders Options 
 Beginning of period  11  39   6  31 
  Aircraft delivered   (3)  0   (2)  0 
  Aircraft ordered   2  0   3  0 
  New options   0  0   0  19 
  Exercised options   0  3   4  (4) 
  Expired options   0  (5)   0  (7) 
 End of period  10  37   11  39 

Employee Agreements — Approximately 52% of our employees are represented by collective bargaining agreements and/or unions. These agreements generally include annual escalations of up to 8.8%. Periodically, certain groups of our employees who are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement consider entering into such an agreement.

Nigerian Litigation In November 2005, two of our consolidated foreign affiliates were named in a lawsuit filed with the High Court of Lagos State, Nigeria by Mr. Benneth Osita Onwubalili and his affiliated company, Kensit Nigeria Limited, which allegedly acted as agents of our affiliates in Nigeria. The claimants allege that an agreement between the parties was terminated without justification and seek damages of $16.3 million. We responded to this claim in early 2006. There has been minimal activity on this claim since then.

Civil Class Action Lawsuit On June 12, 2009, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-00438, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  The purported class action complaint, which also named other providers of offshore helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico as defendants, alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Among other things, the complaint alleged that the defendants unlawfully conspired to raise and maintain the price of offshore helicopter services between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005.  The plaintiff was seeking to represent a purported class of direct purchasers of offshore helicopter services and was asking for, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief. In September 2010, the court granted our and the other defendants' motion to dismiss the case on several grounds. The plaintiff then filed a motion seeking a rehearing and seeking leave to amend its original complaint which was partially granted to permit limited discovery. We and the other defendants again filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit which were granted. The plaintiff has since appealed the judgment in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. We intend to file a response in the near future and continue to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are currently unable to determine whether it could have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Environmental Contingencies The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, also referred to as the EPA, has in the past notified us that we are a potential responsible party, or PRP, at three former waste disposal facilities that are on the National Priorities List of contaminated sites. Under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as the Superfund law, persons who are identified as PRPs may be subject to strict, joint and several liability for the costs of cleaning up environmental contamination resulting from releases of hazardous substances at National Priorities List sites. Although we have not yet obtained a formal release of liability from the EPA with respect to any of the sites, we believe that our potential liability in connection with the sites is not likely to have a material adverse affect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Guarantees — We have guaranteed the repayment of up to £10 million ($15.6 million) of the debt of FBS Limited, an unconsolidated affiliate, which expires December 31, 2012. See discussion of this commitment in Note 3 to our fiscal year 2011 Financial Statements.

Other Matters — Although infrequent, aircraft accidents have occurred in the past, and the related losses and liability claims have been covered by insurance subject to deductible, self-insured retention and loss sensitive factors.

We are a defendant in certain claims and litigation arising out of operations in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, uninsured losses, if any, will not be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.