COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company's capital commitments as of June 30, 2017 by year of expected payment were as follows (in thousands):



	Remainder of 2017		2018		2019		Total
Shipping Services	$	8,356	$	2,259	$	—	$	10,615
Inland River Services	11,780		926		463		13,169
	$	20,136	$	3,185	$	463	$	23,784

Shipping Services’ capital commitments included one U.S.-flag chemical and petroleum articulated tug-barge and two U.S.-flag harbor tugs. Inland River Services’ capital commitments included two inland river towboats and other equipment and improvements.

On December 15, 2010, ORM and NRC were named as defendants in one of the several “master complaints” filed in the overall multi-district litigation relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and clean-up in the Gulf of Mexico, which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “MDL”). The “B3” 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. Both prior to and following the filing of the aforementioned master complaint, individual civil actions naming the Company, ORM, and/or NRC alleging B3 exposure-based injuries and/or damages were consolidated with the MDL and stayed pursuant to court order, discussed in turn below. The Company has continually taken the position that all of the B3 claims asserted against ORM and NRC have no merit. On February 16, 2016, all but eleven B3 claims against ORM and NRC were dismissed with prejudice, whether by joinder in the master complaint, individual complaint, or otherwise (the “B3 Dismissal Order”). On August 2, 2016, the Court granted an omnibus motion for summary judgment as it concerns ORM and NRC in its entirety, dismissing the remaining eleven plaintiffs’ against ORM and NRC with prejudice (the “Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs’ Dismissal Order”).

As noted above, various civil actions concerning the Deepwater Horizon clean-up have been consolidated with the MDL, although a number of them have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. A summary of the remaining claims is as follows:

•

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.) (the “Jambon Action”). 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. The Jambon Action remains stayed.

•

On April 8, 2013, the Company, ORM, and NRC were named as defendants in William and Dianna Fitzgerald v. BP Exploration et al., No. 2:13-CV-00650 (E.D. La.) (the “Fitzgerald Action”), which is a suit by a husband and wife whose son allegedly participated in the clean-up effort and became ill as a result of his exposure to oil and dispersants. While the decedent in the Fitzgerald Action’s claims against ORM and NRC were dismissed by virtue of the Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs’ Dismissal Order, the claim as against the Company remains stayed. Following a status conference with the Court on February 17, 2017, the Court issued several new pretrial orders in connection with the remaining claims in the MDL.

On July 18, 2017, the Court issued an order dismissing all remaining “B3” claims in the MDL with prejudice, with the exception of certain claims specifically listed on an exhibit annexed to the order (the “Master MDL B3 Dismissal Order”). Mr. Dinwiddie, the claimant at issue in the Jambon Action, was not listed in this exhibit to the Master MDL B3 Dismissal Order, and so this claim against ORM and NRC has been dismissed with prejudice. Nathan Fitzgerald, the decedent in the Fitzgerald Action, was listed, and so this claim against the Company remains pending. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these matters, to the extent they remain viable, but believes they are without merit and does not expect that they will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

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 (“Cameron”), Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and M-I L.L.C. (“M-I”) 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 asserted counterclaims against those same parties for identical relief. The remainder of the aforementioned cross-claims in Transocean’s limitation action remain pending, although the Company believes that the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these matters has been reduced as a result of the various developments in the MDL, including the B3 Dismissal Order and Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs’ Dismissal Order, and does not expect that these matters will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On November 16, 2012, 668 individuals who served as beach clean-up workers in Escambia County, Florida during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response commenced a civil action in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Escambia County, Abney et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., No. 2012-CA-002947, in which they allege, among other things, that ORM and other defendants engaged in the contamination of Florida waters and beaches in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 376 and injured the Plaintiffs by exposing them to dispersants during the course and scope of their employment. This case was removed to federal court and ultimately consolidated with the MDL on April 2, 2013. On April 22, 2013, a companion case to this matter was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Abood et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., No. 3:13-CV-00284 (N.D. Fla.), which alleges identical allegations against the same parties but names an additional 174 Plaintiffs, all of whom served as clean-up workers in various Florida counties during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. This case was consolidated with the MDL on May 10, 2013. By court order, both of these matters were then stayed since they were consolidated with the MDL. The names of only a very small percentage of the claimants in these two matters appear to be listed on the exhibit to the Master MDL B3 Dismissal Order. The Company continues to evaluate the impact of the developments in the MDL, including the settlements discussed below, on these cases, but believes that the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these matters has been reduced as a result of these developments and does not expect that these matters will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Separately, on March 2, 2012, the Court announced that BP Exploration and BP America Production Company (“BP America”) (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. Both settlements were granted final approval by the Court, all appeals have concluded, and the deadline for submitting claims with respect to both settlements has passed. Although neither the Company, ORM, nor NRC are parties to the settlement agreements, the Company, ORM, and NRC are listed as released parties on the releases accompanying both settlement agreements. Consequently, class members who did not file timely requests for exclusion will be barred from pursuing economic loss, property damage, personal injury, medical monitoring, and/or other released claims against the Company, ORM, and NRC. The Company believes these settlements have reduced the potential exposure, if any, in connection with the various cases relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and clean-up and continues to evaluate the settlements’ impacts on these cases.

In the course of the Company’s business, it may agree to indemnify the counterparty to an agreement. 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 SES Business Transaction, the Company remains contingently liable for certain obligations, including potential liabilities relating to work performed in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. Pursuant to the agreement governing the sale, the Company’s potential liability to the purchaser may not exceed the consideration received by the Company for the SES Business Transaction. The Company is currently indemnified under contractual agreements with BP for the potential liabilities relating to work performed in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response.

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, results of operations or cash flows.