Commitments And Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies

8. Commitments and Contingencies

As of September 30, 2011, the Company's unfunded capital commitments consisted primarily of offshore support vessels, helicopters, inland river tank barges, an interest in a dry-bulk articulated tug-barge, an interest in a river grain terminal and other property and equipment. These commitments totaled $302.0 million, of which $102.0 million is payable during the remainder of 2011 with the balance payable through 2013. Of the total unfunded capital commitments, $45.7 million may be terminated without further liability other than the payment of liquidated damages of $1.4 million. Subsequent to September 30, 2011, the Company committed to purchase additional equipment for $30.0 million.

The Company has guaranteed the payment of amounts owed by one of its joint ventures under a vessel charter agreement that expires in 2012. In addition, the Company has guaranteed amounts owed under banking facilities by certain of its joint ventures. As of September 30, 2011, the total amount guaranteed by the Company under these arrangements was $24.9 million. In addition, as of September 30, 2011, the Company had uncalled capital commitments to two of its joint ventures for a total of $2.6 million.

On August 19, 2011, the Company granted two fixed price purchase options to an unrelated third party to acquire up to 25% of the outstanding common stock of a certain Environmental Services' subsidiary of the Company. The first option to acquire a 12.5% interest may be exercised beginning August 19, 2012 through August 19, 2014. If the first option is exercised, the second option to acquire an additional 12.5% may be exercised beginning August 19, 2013 through August 19, 2015.

Certain subsidiaries of the Company are participating employers in an industry-wide, multi-employer, defined benefit pension fund, the United Kingdom Merchant Navy Officers Pension Fund ("MNOPF"). Under the direction of a court order, any deficit of the MNOPF is to be remedied through funding contributions from all participating employers. The Company's participation relates to officers employed between 1978 and 2002 by SEACOR's Stirling group of companies (which had been acquired by SEACOR in 2001) and its predecessors. Based on an actuarial valuation of the MNOPF in 2003, the Company was invoiced and expensed $4.4 million in 2005, representing the Company's allocated share of a total funding deficit of $412.0 million. Subsequent to this invoice, the pension fund trustees determined that $49.0 million of the $412.0 million deficit was deemed uncollectible due to the non-existence or liquidation of certain participating employers and the Company was invoiced and expensed $0.6 million in 2007 for its allocated share of the uncollectible deficit. Based on an actuarial valuation of the MNOPF in 2006, the Company was invoiced and expensed $3.9 million in 2007, representing the Company's allocated share of an additional funding deficit of $332.6 million. Based on an actuarial valuation of the MNOPF in 2009, the Company was invoiced and expensed $7.8 million in 2010, representing the Company's allocated share of an additional funding deficit of $636.9 million. Depending on the results of future actuarial valuations, it is possible that the MNOPF will experience further funding deficits, requiring the Company to recognize payroll related operating expenses in the periods invoices are received.

A subsidiary of the Company is a participating employer in an industry-wide, multi-employer, defined benefit pension fund, the United Kingdom Merchant Navy Ratings Pension Fund ("MNRPF"). The Company's participation relates to ratings employed between 1978 and 2001 by SEACOR's Stirling group of companies (which had been acquired by SEACOR in 2001) and its predecessors. Based on an actuarial valuation in March 2008, the Company was advised that its share of a $281.0 million (£175.0 million) accumulated funding deficit was $1.0 million (£0.6 million). The accumulated funding deficit is being recovered by additional annual contributions from current employers and is subject to adjustment following the results of future tri-annual actuarial valuations. As of September 30, 2011, $0.4 million, in the aggregate, of the Company's funding deficit had been invoiced and expensed. Depending on the results of the future actuarial valuations, it is possible that the MNRPF will experience further funding deficits, requiring the Company to recognize additional payroll related operating expenses in the periods invoices are received.

Certain subsidiaries of the Company are participating employers in an industry-wide, multi-employer defined benefit pension plan, the American Maritime Officers Pension Plan ("the AMOPP"). Under federal pension law, the AMOPP was deemed in critical status for the 2009 and 2010 plan years as the funded percentage of the AMOPP was less than 65% of the pension liability. The AMOPP was frozen in January 2010 and a ten year rehabilitation plan was adopted by the AMOPP trustees in February 2010 whereby benefit changes and increased contributions by participating employers are expected to improve the funded status of the AMOPP. Based on an actuarial valuation performed as of September 30, 2010, the Company was advised that if it chose to withdraw from the AMOPP, its withdrawal liability would have been $29.5 million. As of September 30, 2011, the Company has no intention to withdraw from the AMOPP and no deficit amounts have been invoiced. Depending upon the results of the future actuarial valuations and the ten year rehabilitation plan, it is possible that the AMOPP will experience further funding deficits, requiring the Company to recognize additional payroll related operating expenses in the periods invoices are received or contribution levels are increased.

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 alleges 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 includes all direct purchasers of such services and the relief sought includes compensatory damages and treble damages. The Company believes that the claims set forth in the Complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. 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 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. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these claims but believes they are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend the action.

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 has asked the Company to prepare final judgments to be entered in each of the limitation actions and in the Robin Case and the Company expects those judgments to be entered in the coming weeks.

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 O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("O'Brien's), a subsidiary of SEACOR. 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 experience injuries similar to Mr. Wunstell. The Company believes this lawsuit has no merit and will seek its dismissal. Pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend O'Brien's in connection with the Wunstell Action and claims asserted in the MDL.

On December 15, 2010, SEACOR subsidiaries O'Brien's and 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 O'Brien's 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 its subsidiaries in the master complaint have no merit and on February 28, 2011, O'Brien's 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 O'Brien's 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 O'Brien's and NRC advanced and has directed O'Brien's and NRC to (i) conduct limited discovery to develop evidence to support those arguments and (ii) then re-assert the arguments. A schedule for such limited discovery and future motion practice is currently being discussed with the Court. 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. Finally, the Court stated that the plaintiffs could file an amended master complaint and the plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to do so. In addition to the indemnity provided to O'Brien's, pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitation, to indemnify and defend O'Brien's and NRC in connection with these claims in the MDL.

Subsequent to the filing of the referenced master complaint, four 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, O'Brien's and/or NRC as defendants and are part of the overall MDL. On April 8, 2011, O'Brien's 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, O'Brien's 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, O'Brien's 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 O'Brien's and NRC (and the other defendants). By court order, all four of these additional individual cases have been stayed as a result of the filing of the referenced master complaint.

On February 18, 2011, Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., and Transocean Deepwater Inc. (collectively "Transocean") named O'Brien's 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 O'Brien's and NRC the claims in the referenced master complaint that have already been asserted against O'Brien's 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 O'Brien's and NRC for contribution and tort indemnity should they be found liable for any damages in Transocean's Limitation of Liability Act action and O'Brien's and NRC have asserted counterclaims against those same parties for identical relief.

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 such exposure could occur, but the Company does not expect that any change in estimated exposure would have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations.

During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company received notice from the Internal Revenue Service of $12.6 million in proposed penalties regarding Marine Transportation Services' informational excise tax filings for prior years. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position that the proposed penalties are 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.

During the nine months ended September 30, 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 whose owner would be responsible to reimburse any potential payment.