Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Notes to Financial Statements [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

NOTE H - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

We are named defendants in lawsuits and respondents in governmental proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of lawsuits or other proceedings against us cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not reasonably expect these matters to have a material adverse impact on the financial statements.

Derivative Lawsuit

Between May 28, 2008 and June 27, 2008, two petitions were filed by alleged stockholders in the District Courts of Harris County, Texas, 133rd and 113th Judicial Districts, purportedly on our behalf. The suits name our directors and certain officers as defendants. The factual allegations in these lawsuits mirror those in a federal class action lawsuit which was settled during 2010. The claims are for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The petitions seek disgorgement, costs, expenses, and unspecified equitable relief. On September 22, 2008, the 133rd District Court consolidated these complaints as In re TETRA Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Cause No. 2008-23432 (133rd Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex.), and appointed Thomas Prow and Mark Patricola as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. This lawsuit was stayed by agreement of the parties pending the Court's ruling on our motion to dismiss the federal class action. On September 8, 2009, the plaintiffs in this state court action filed a consolidated petition which makes factual allegations similar to the surviving allegations in the federal lawsuit prior to it being settled. On April 19, 2010, the Court granted our motion to abate the suit, based on plaintiff's inability to demonstrate derivative standing. On June 8, 2010, we received a letter from plaintiff's counsel demanding that our board of directors take action against the defendants named in the previously filed derivative lawsuit. On August 22, 2011, the Court issued a Preliminary Approval Order preliminarily approving the settlement of the suit as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated August 12, 2011 (the Stipulation). The Stipulation does not provide for the payment of monetary compensation to stockholders; rather, it provides for certain additions to our corporate governance policies and procedures and for the payment of plaintiff's attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, which will be paid by our insurers. On October 17, 2011, the Court granted final approval of the settlement.

Environmental

One of our subsidiaries, TETRA Micronutrients, Inc. (TMI), previously owned and operated a production facility located in Fairbury, Nebraska. TMI is subject to an Administrative Order on Consent issued to American Microtrace, Inc. (n/k/a/ TETRA Micronutrients, Inc.) in the proceeding styled In the Matter of American Microtrace Corporation, EPA I.D. No. NED00610550, Respondent, Docket No. VII-98-H-0016, dated September 25, 1998 (the Consent Order), with regard to the Fairbury facility. TMI is liable for future remediation costs and ongoing environmental monitoring at the Fairbury facility under the Consent Order; however, the current owner of the Fairbury facility is responsible for costs associated with the closure of that facility.