Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES As of September 30, 2012, the Company’s unfunded capital commitments totaled $365.0 million and consisted of: twelve offshore support vessels for $131.4 million; an interest in a jack-up drilling rig for $30.3 million; twelve helicopters for $138.3 million; seven inland river liquid tank barges for $15.1 million; three inland river towboats for $9.4 million; four harbor tugs for $23.0 million and other equipment and improvements for $14.9 million. In addition, the Company notified the lessee of its intent to purchase two harbor tugs currently operating under capital leases for $2.6 million. Of these commitments, $58.6 million is payable during the remainder of 2012 with the balance payable through 2016 and $125.0 million may be terminated without further liability other than the payment of liquidated damages of $3.3 million. Prior to the sale of the SES Business, the Company had issued performance guarantees on behalf of the SES Business that expire in 2012 through 2014. As of September 30, 2012, the amount of outstanding SES Business performance guarantees was $0.2 million. On June 12, 2009, a purported civil class action was filed against the Company, Era Group Inc., Era Helicopters LLC and three other defendants (collectively, the “Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., et al., No. 09-CV-438 (D. Del.). The Complaint alleged that the Defendants violated federal antitrust law by conspiring with each other to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter services in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico during the period January 2001 to December 2005. The purported class of plaintiffs included all direct purchasers of such services and the relief sought included compensatory damages and treble damages. On September 4, 2009, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. On September 14, 2010, the Court entered an order dismissing the Complaint. On September 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and amendment and a motion for re-argument (the “Motions”). On November 30, 2010, the Court granted the Motions, amended the Court's September 14, 2010 Order to clarify that the dismissal was without prejudice, permitted the filing of an amended Complaint, and authorized limited discovery with respect to the new allegations in the amended Complaint. Following the completion of such limited discovery, on February 11, 2011, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the amended Complaint with prejudice. On June 23, 2011, the District Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants. On July 22, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On July 27, 2002, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. On August 9, 2011, Defendants moved for certain excessive costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (the “Fee Motion”). On October 9, 2012, the District Court denied the Fee Motion. On July 14, 2010, a group of individuals and entities purporting to represent a class commenced a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Terry G. Robin, et al. v. Seacor Marine, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:10-cv-01986 (E.D. La.) (the “Robin Case”), in which they assert that support vessels, including vessels owned by the Company, responding to the explosion and resulting fire that occurred aboard the semi-submersible drilling rig, the Deepwater Horizon, were negligent in their efforts to save lives and put out the fire and contributed to the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill. The action now is part of the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon”, MDL No. 2179 (“MDL”). The complaint seeks compensatory, punitive, exemplary, and other damages. In response to this lawsuit, the Company filed petitions seeking exoneration from, or limitation of liability in relation to, any actions that may have been taken by vessels owned by the Company to extinguish the fire. Pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act, those petitions imposed an automatic stay on the Robin Case, and the court set a deadline of April 20, 2011 for individual claimants to assert claims in the limitation cases. Approximately 66 claims were submitted by the deadline in all of the limitation actions. On June 8, 2011, the Company moved to dismiss these claims (with the exception of one claim filed by a Company employee) on various legal grounds. On October 12, 2011, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety, dismissing with prejudice all claims that had been filed against the Company in the limitation actions (with the exception of one claim filed by a Company employee that was not subject to the motion to dismiss). The Court entered final judgments in favor of the Company in the Robin Case and each of the limitation actions on November 21, 2011. On December 12, 2011, the claimants appealed each of those judgments to the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The claimants' opening brief was submitted on May 7, 2012, and the claimants filed a reply brief on June 1, 2012. The appeal is now fully submitted but no date has been set for oral argument, if any. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter but believes it is without merit and will continue to vigorously defend the action. On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K) (the “Wunstell Action”), in which they assert, among other theories, that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection with the provision of remediation, containment and response services by ORM. The action now is part of the overall MDL. The complaint also seeks to establish a “class-wide court-supervised medical monitoring program” for all individuals “participating in BP's Deepwater Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or Horizon Response Program” who allegedly experienced injuries similar to those of Mr. Wunstell. The Company believes this lawsuit has no merit and will continue to vigorously defend the action. Pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM in connection with the Wunstell Action and claims asserted in the MDL. On December 15, 2010, ORM and then-SEACOR subsidiary National Response Corporation (“NRC”) were named as defendants in one of the several consolidated “master complaints” that have been filed in the overall MDL. The master complaint naming ORM and NRC asserts various claims on behalf of a putative class against multiple defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally, and the use of dispersants specifically. By court order, the Wunstell Action has been stayed as a result of the filing of the referenced master complaint. The Company believes that the claims asserted against ORM and NRC in the master complaint have no merit and on February 28, 2011, ORM and NRC moved to dismiss all claims against them in the master complaint on legal grounds. On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss that ORM and NRC had filed (an amended decision was issued on October 4, 2011 that corrected several grammatical errors and non-substantive oversights in the original order). Although the Court refused to dismiss the referenced master complaint in its entirety at that time, the Court did recognize the validity of the “derivative immunity” and “implied preemption” arguments that ORM and NRC advanced and has directed ORM and NRC to (i) conduct limited discovery to develop evidence to support those arguments and (ii) then re-assert the arguments. The Court did, however, dismiss all state-law claims and certain other claims that had been asserted in the referenced master complaint, and dismissed the claims of all plaintiffs that have failed to allege a legally-sufficient injury. A schedule for limited discovery and motion practice was established by the Court and, in accordance with that schedule, ORM and NRC filed for summary judgment re-asserting their derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments on May 18, 2012. Those motions were argued on July 13, 2012 and are still pending decision. In addition to the indemnity provided to ORM, pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM and NRC in connection with these claims in the MDL. Subsequent to the filing of the referenced master complaint, five additional individual civil actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana concerning the clean-up activities generally, which name the Company, ORM and/or NRC as defendants or third-party defendants and are part of the overall MDL. On April 8, 2011, ORM was named as a defendant in Johnson Bros. Corporation of Louisiana v. BP, PLC, et al., No. 2:11-cv-00781 (E.D. La.), which is a suit by an individual business seeking damages allegedly caused by a delay on a construction project alleged to have resulted from the clean-up operations. On April 15, 2011, ORM and NRC were named as defendants in James and Krista Pearson v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., No. 2:11-cv-00863 (E.D. La.), which is a suit by a husband and wife, who allegedly participated in the clean-up effort and are seeking damages for personal injury, property damage to their boat, and amounts allegedly due under contract. On April 15, 2011, ORM and NRC were named as defendants in Thomas Edward Black v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., No. 2:11-cv-00867 (E.D. La.), which is a suit by an individual who is seeking damages for lost income because he allegedly could not find work in the fishing industry after the oil spill. On April 20, 2011, a complaint was filed in Darnell Alexander, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., No. 2:11-cv-00951 (E.D. La.) on behalf of 117 individual plaintiffs that seek to adopt the allegations made in the referenced master complaint against ORM and NRC (and the other defendants). Finally, on October 3, 2012, ORM and NRC were served with a Rule 14(c) Third-Party Complaint by Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C. and Jambon Marine Holdings L.L.C. in their Limitation of Liability action, In the Matter of Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:12-CV-00426 (E.D. La.). This Third-Party Complaint alleges that if claimant David Dinwiddie, who served as a clean-up crewmember aboard the M/V JAMBON SUPPLIER II vessel during the clean-up efforts, was injured as a result of his exposure to dispersants and chemicals during the course and scope of his employment, then said injuries were caused by the third-party defendants. By court order, all five of these additional individual cases have been stayed as a result of the filing of the referenced master complaint. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter but believes it is without merit and does not expect this matter will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations. On February 18, 2011, Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., and Transocean Deepwater Inc. (collectively “Transocean”) named ORM and NRC as third-party defendants in a Rule 14(c) Third-Party Complaint in Transocean's own Limitation of Liability Act action, which is part of the overall MDL, tendering to ORM and NRC the claims in the referenced master complaint that have already been asserted against ORM and NRC. Transocean, Cameron International Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., M-I L.L.C., Weatherford U.S., L.P., and Weatherford International, Inc. have also filed cross-claims against ORM and NRC for contribution and tort indemnity should they be found liable for any damages in Transocean's Limitation of Liability Act action and ORM and NRC have asserted counterclaims against those same parties for identical relief. As provided above, the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these actions but believes they are without merit and does not expect this matter will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations. Separately, on March 2, 2012, the Court announced that BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company (collectively "BP") and the plaintiffs had reached an agreement on the terms of two proposed class action settlements that will resolve, among other things, plaintiffs' economic loss claims and clean-up related claims against BP. The parties filed their proposed settlement agreements on April 18, 2012 along with motions seeking preliminary approval of the settlements. The Court held a hearing on April 25, 2012 to consider those motions and preliminarily approved both settlements on May 2, 2012. Although neither the Company, ORM or NRC are parties to the settlement agreements, the Company, ORM and NRC are listed on the releases accompanying both settlement agreements, such that if the settlement agreements are finally approved by the Court as currently drafted, any plaintiffs that settle will be required to release their claims against the Company, ORM and NRC. The opt-out period for the proposed settlements closes on November 1, 2012. A final fairness hearing to consider whether the settlements should be finally approved is scheduled for November 8, 2012. In the course of the Company's business, it may agree to indemnify a party. If the indemnified party makes a successful claim for indemnification, the Company would be required to reimburse that party in accordance with the terms of the indemnification agreement. Indemnification agreements generally are subject to threshold amounts, specified claim periods and other restrictions and limitations. In connection with the disposition of the SES Business on March 16, 2012, the Company remains contingently liable for certain obligations of the SES Business, including potential liabilities relating to work performed in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. These potential liabilities may not exceed the purchase consideration received by the Company for the SES Business and the Company currently is indemnified under contractual agreements with BP. ORM, a subsidiary of the Company, is defending against five collective action lawsuits, each asserting failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals who provided service on the Deepwater Horizon spill response (the “DPH FLSA Actions”) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Four of the cases - Dennis Prejean v. O'Brien's Response Management, Inc. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01045) (the “Prejean Action”); Baylor Singleton et. al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc., et. al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01716) (the “Singleton Action”); Himmerite et al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01533) (the “Himmerite Action”); and Chann Chavis v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al. (S.D. Tx., Case No.: 4:12-cv-02045) (the “Chavis Action”) - were each brought on behalf of certain individuals who worked on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and who were classified as independent contractors. The Prejean, Himmerite and Singleton Actions were each filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and then subsequently consolidated with the In re: Oil Spill Multidistrict Litigation (N.D. La., Case No. 10-md-02179) (the “Oil Spill MDL”). The Himmerite and Singleton Actions have since been automatically stayed pending further scheduling by the Court, pursuant to the procedures in the Oil Spill MDL. In the Prejean Action, ORM has answered the complaint, a scheduling order has been issued and Plaintiffs have, among other things, filed a Motion for Conditional Certification, which has been stayed pending further scheduling by the Court in accordance with the procedures of the Oil Spill MDL. The limitations periods for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to the Prejean, Himmerite and Singleton actions have all been tolled pending further action by the court. ORM has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's order tolling the limitations periods in these actions. The Chavis Action was filed on July 7, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and ORM answered the complaint in that matter. The other DPH FLSA Action, Mark Blackman et. al. v. Midwest Environmental Resources, Inc., et. al. (N.D. Fla., Case No.: 3:11-cv-146) (the “Blackman Action”), was filed by five individual Plaintiffs on March 28, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, against ORM and several other Defendants. The complaint in the Blackman Action alleges that the named Plaintiffs and class of workers they are suing on behalf of, identified in the complaint as “Safety Techs,” were not appropriately compensated for all of their work time in violation of the FLSA. On July 8, 2011, the Court stayed all proceedings in the Blackman Action. On May 8, 2012, the Court ruled on various motions to dismiss brought by ORM and by the other Defendants, denying them in part, granting them in part, and providing the Plaintiffs with leave to amend the complaint. On June 6, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on June 20, 2012, Defendant ORM answered the amended complaint, denying all of the Plaintiffs' claims. On July 6, 2012, the Court issued a scheduling order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. On August 27, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Morion for Conditional Certification. Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion is due January 31, 2013. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from any of the five DPH FLSA Actions, but believes they are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend against them. In 2011, the Company received a Notice of Infringement (the “Notice”) from the Brazilian Federal Revenue Office. The Notice alleged the Company had imported a number of vessels into Brazil without properly completing the required importation documents and levied an assessment of $25.7 million. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position that the proposed assessment is erroneous and believes the resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations. Of the levied assessment, $19.3 million relates to managed vessels. On August 17, 2012, the Company entered into a transfer agreement with the owner of these managed vessels. Under the terms of the agreement, the owner would be responsible to reimburse any potential payment in excess of $1.0 million in assessments and expenses. In the normal course of its business, the Company becomes involved in various other litigation matters including, among other things, claims by third parties for alleged property damages and personal injuries. Management has used estimates in determining the Company's potential exposure to these matters and has recorded reserves in its financial statements related thereto where appropriate. It is possible that a change in the Company's estimates of that exposure could occur, but the Company does not expect such changes in estimated costs would have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

As of September 30, 2012, the Company’s unfunded capital commitments totaled $365.0 million and consisted of: twelve offshore support vessels for $131.4 million; an interest in a jack-up drilling rig for $30.3 million; twelve helicopters for $138.3 million; seven inland river liquid tank barges for $15.1 million; three inland river towboats for $9.4 million; four harbor tugs for $23.0 million and other equipment and improvements for $14.9 million. In addition, the Company notified the lessee of its intent to purchase two harbor tugs currently operating under capital leases for $2.6 million. Of these commitments, $58.6 million is payable during the remainder of 2012 with the balance payable through 2016 and $125.0 million may be terminated without further liability other than the payment of liquidated damages of $3.3 million.

Prior to the sale of the SES Business, the Company had issued performance guarantees on behalf of the SES Business that expire in 2012 through 2014. As of September 30, 2012, the amount of outstanding SES Business performance guarantees was $0.2 million.

On June 12, 2009, a purported civil class action was filed against the Company, Era Group Inc., Era Helicopters LLC and three other defendants (collectively, the “Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., et al., No. 09-CV-438 (D. Del.). The Complaint alleged that the Defendants violated federal antitrust law by conspiring with each other to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter services in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico during the period January 2001 to December 2005. The purported class of plaintiffs included all direct purchasers of such services and the relief sought included compensatory damages and treble damages. On September 4, 2009, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. On September 14, 2010, the Court entered an order dismissing the Complaint. On September 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and amendment and a motion for re-argument (the “Motions”). On November 30, 2010, the Court granted the Motions, amended the Court's September 14, 2010 Order to clarify that the dismissal was without prejudice, permitted the filing of an amended Complaint, and authorized limited discovery with respect to the new allegations in the amended Complaint. Following the completion of such limited discovery, on February 11, 2011, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the amended Complaint with prejudice. On June 23, 2011, the District Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants. On July 22, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On July 27, 2002, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. On August 9, 2011, Defendants moved for certain excessive costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (the “Fee Motion”). On October 9, 2012, the District Court denied the Fee Motion.

On July 14, 2010, a group of individuals and entities purporting to represent a class commenced a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Terry G. Robin, et al. v. Seacor Marine, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:10-cv-01986 (E.D. La.) (the “Robin Case”), in which they assert that support vessels, including vessels owned by the Company, responding to the explosion and resulting fire that occurred aboard the semi-submersible drilling rig, the Deepwater Horizon, were negligent in their efforts to save lives and put out the fire and contributed to the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill. The action now is part of the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon”, MDL No. 2179 (“MDL”). The complaint seeks compensatory, punitive, exemplary, and other damages. In response to this lawsuit, the Company filed petitions seeking exoneration from, or limitation of liability in relation to, any actions that may have been taken by vessels owned by the Company to extinguish the fire. Pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act, those petitions imposed an automatic stay on the Robin Case, and the court set a deadline of April 20, 2011 for individual claimants to assert claims in the limitation cases. Approximately 66 claims were submitted by the deadline in all of the limitation actions. On June 8, 2011, the Company moved to dismiss these claims (with the exception of one claim filed by a Company employee) on various legal grounds. On October 12, 2011, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety, dismissing with prejudice all claims that had been filed against the Company in the limitation actions (with the exception of one claim filed by a Company employee that was not subject to the motion to dismiss). The Court entered final judgments in favor of the Company in the Robin Case and each of the limitation actions on November 21, 2011. On December 12, 2011, the claimants appealed each of those judgments to the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The claimants' opening brief was submitted on May 7, 2012, and the claimants filed a reply brief on June 1, 2012. The appeal is now fully submitted but no date has been set for oral argument, if any. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter but believes it is without merit and will continue to vigorously defend the action.

On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K) (the “Wunstell Action”), in which they assert, among other theories, that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection with the provision of remediation, containment and response services by ORM. The action now is part of the overall MDL. The complaint also seeks to establish a “class-wide court-supervised medical monitoring program” for all individuals “participating in BP's Deepwater Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or Horizon Response Program” who allegedly experienced injuries similar to those of Mr. Wunstell. The Company believes this lawsuit has no merit and will continue to vigorously defend the action. Pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM in connection with the Wunstell Action and claims asserted in the MDL.

On December 15, 2010, ORM and then-SEACOR subsidiary National Response Corporation (“NRC”) were named as defendants in one of the several consolidated “master complaints” that have been filed in the overall MDL. The master complaint naming ORM and NRC asserts various claims on behalf of a putative class against multiple defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally, and the use of dispersants specifically. By court order, the Wunstell Action has been stayed as a result of the filing of the referenced master complaint. The Company believes that the claims asserted against ORM and NRC in the master complaint have no merit and on February 28, 2011, ORM and NRC moved to dismiss all claims against them in the master complaint on legal grounds. On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss that ORM and NRC had filed (an amended decision was issued on October 4, 2011 that corrected several grammatical errors and non-substantive oversights in the original order). Although the Court refused to dismiss the referenced master complaint in its entirety at that time, the Court did recognize the validity of the “derivative immunity” and “implied preemption” arguments that ORM and NRC advanced and has directed ORM and NRC to (i) conduct limited discovery to develop evidence to support those arguments and (ii) then re-assert the arguments. The Court did, however, dismiss all state-law claims and certain other claims that had been asserted in the referenced master complaint, and dismissed the claims of all plaintiffs that have failed to allege a legally-sufficient injury. A schedule for limited discovery and motion practice was established by the Court and, in accordance with that schedule, ORM and NRC filed for summary judgment re-asserting their derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments on May 18, 2012. Those motions were argued on July 13, 2012 and are still pending decision. In addition to the indemnity provided to ORM, pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM and NRC in connection with these claims in the MDL.

Subsequent to the filing of the referenced master complaint, five additional individual civil actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana concerning the clean-up activities generally, which name the Company, ORM and/or NRC as defendants or third-party defendants and are part of the overall MDL. On April 8, 2011, ORM was named as a defendant in Johnson Bros. Corporation of Louisiana v. BP, PLC, et al., No. 2:11-cv-00781 (E.D. La.), which is a suit by an individual business seeking damages allegedly caused by a delay on a construction project alleged to have resulted from the clean-up operations. On April 15, 2011, ORM and NRC were named as defendants in James and Krista Pearson v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., No. 2:11-cv-00863 (E.D. La.), which is a suit by a husband and wife, who allegedly participated in the clean-up effort and are seeking damages for personal injury, property damage to their boat, and amounts allegedly due under contract. On April 15, 2011, ORM and NRC were named as defendants in Thomas Edward Black v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., No. 2:11-cv-00867 (E.D. La.), which is a suit by an individual who is seeking damages for lost income because he allegedly could not find work in the fishing industry after the oil spill. On April 20, 2011, a complaint was filed in Darnell Alexander, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., No. 2:11-cv-00951 (E.D. La.) on behalf of 117 individual plaintiffs that seek to adopt the allegations made in the referenced master complaint against ORM and NRC (and the other defendants). Finally, on October 3, 2012, ORM and NRC were served with a Rule 14(c) Third-Party Complaint by Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C. and Jambon Marine Holdings L.L.C. in their Limitation of Liability action, In the Matter of Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:12-CV-00426 (E.D. La.). This Third-Party Complaint alleges that if claimant David Dinwiddie, who served as a clean-up crewmember aboard the M/V JAMBON SUPPLIER II vessel during the clean-up efforts, was injured as a result of his exposure to dispersants and chemicals during the course and scope of his employment, then said injuries were caused by the third-party defendants. By court order, all five of these additional individual cases have been stayed as a result of the filing of the referenced master complaint. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter but believes it is without merit and does not expect this matter will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations.

On February 18, 2011, Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., and Transocean Deepwater Inc. (collectively “Transocean”) named ORM and NRC as third-party defendants in a Rule 14(c) Third-Party Complaint in Transocean's own Limitation of Liability Act action, which is part of the overall MDL, tendering to ORM and NRC the claims in the referenced master complaint that have already been asserted against ORM and NRC. Transocean, Cameron International Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., M-I L.L.C., Weatherford U.S., L.P., and Weatherford International, Inc. have also filed cross-claims against ORM and NRC for contribution and tort indemnity should they be found liable for any damages in Transocean's Limitation of Liability Act action and ORM and NRC have asserted counterclaims against those same parties for identical relief. As provided above, the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these actions but believes they are without merit and does not expect this matter will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations.

Separately, on March 2, 2012, the Court announced that BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company (collectively "BP") and the plaintiffs had reached an agreement on the terms of two proposed class action settlements that will resolve, among other things, plaintiffs' economic loss claims and clean-up related claims against BP. The parties filed their proposed settlement agreements on April 18, 2012 along with motions seeking preliminary approval of the settlements. The Court held a hearing on April 25, 2012 to consider those motions and preliminarily approved both settlements on May 2, 2012. Although neither the Company, ORM or NRC are parties to the settlement agreements, the Company, ORM and NRC are listed on the releases accompanying both settlement agreements, such that if the settlement agreements are finally approved by the Court as currently drafted, any plaintiffs that settle will be required to release their claims against the Company, ORM and NRC. The opt-out period for the proposed settlements closes on November 1, 2012. A final fairness hearing to consider whether the settlements should be finally approved is scheduled for November 8, 2012.

In the course of the Company's business, it may agree to indemnify a party. If the indemnified party makes a successful claim for indemnification, the Company would be required to reimburse that party in accordance with the terms of the indemnification agreement. Indemnification agreements generally are subject to threshold amounts, specified claim periods and other restrictions and limitations.

In connection with the disposition of the SES Business on March 16, 2012, the Company remains contingently liable for certain obligations of the SES Business, including potential liabilities relating to work performed in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. These potential liabilities may not exceed the purchase consideration received by the Company for the SES Business and the Company currently is indemnified under contractual agreements with BP.

ORM, a subsidiary of the Company, is defending against five collective action lawsuits, each asserting failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals who provided service on the Deepwater Horizon spill response (the “DPH FLSA Actions”) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Four of the cases - Dennis Prejean v. O'Brien's Response Management, Inc. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01045) (the “Prejean Action”); Baylor Singleton et. al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc., et. al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01716) (the “Singleton Action”); Himmerite et al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01533) (the “Himmerite Action”); and Chann Chavis v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al. (S.D. Tx., Case No.: 4:12-cv-02045) (the “Chavis Action”) - were each brought on behalf of certain individuals who worked on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and who were classified as independent contractors. The Prejean, Himmerite and Singleton Actions were each filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and then subsequently consolidated with the In re: Oil Spill Multidistrict Litigation (N.D. La., Case No. 10-md-02179) (the “Oil Spill MDL”). The Himmerite and Singleton Actions have since been automatically stayed pending further scheduling by the Court, pursuant to the procedures in the Oil Spill MDL. In the Prejean Action, ORM has answered the complaint, a scheduling order has been issued and Plaintiffs have, among other things, filed a Motion for Conditional Certification, which has been stayed pending further scheduling by the Court in accordance with the procedures of the Oil Spill MDL. The limitations periods for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to the Prejean, Himmerite and Singleton actions have all been tolled pending further action by the court. ORM has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's order tolling the limitations periods in these actions. The Chavis Action was filed on July 7, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and ORM answered the complaint in that matter. The other DPH FLSA Action, Mark Blackman et. al. v. Midwest Environmental Resources, Inc., et. al. (N.D. Fla., Case No.: 3:11-cv-146) (the “Blackman Action”), was filed by five individual Plaintiffs on March 28, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, against ORM and several other Defendants. The complaint in the Blackman Action alleges that the named Plaintiffs and class of workers they are suing on behalf of, identified in the complaint as “Safety Techs,” were not appropriately compensated for all of their work time in violation of the FLSA. On July 8, 2011, the Court stayed all proceedings in the Blackman Action. On May 8, 2012, the Court ruled on various motions to dismiss brought by ORM and by the other Defendants, denying them in part, granting them in part, and providing the Plaintiffs with leave to amend the complaint. On June 6, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on June 20, 2012, Defendant ORM answered the amended complaint, denying all of the Plaintiffs' claims. On July 6, 2012, the Court issued a scheduling order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. On August 27, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Morion for Conditional Certification. Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion is due January 31, 2013. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from any of the five DPH FLSA Actions, but believes they are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend against them.

In 2011, the Company received a Notice of Infringement (the “Notice”) from the Brazilian Federal Revenue Office. The Notice alleged the Company had imported a number of vessels into Brazil without properly completing the required importation documents and levied an assessment of $25.7 million. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position that the proposed assessment is erroneous and believes the resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations. Of the levied assessment, $19.3 million relates to managed vessels. On August 17, 2012, the Company entered into a transfer agreement with the owner of these managed vessels. Under the terms of the agreement, the owner would be responsible to reimburse any potential payment in excess of $1.0 million in assessments and expenses.

In the normal course of its business, the Company becomes involved in various other litigation matters including, among other things, claims by third parties for alleged property damages and personal injuries. Management has used estimates in determining the Company's potential exposure to these matters and has recorded reserves in its financial statements related thereto where appropriate. It is possible that a change in the Company's estimates of that exposure could occur, but the Company does not expect such changes in estimated costs would have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations.