TIDEWATER INC - Quarter Report: 2014 June (Form 10-Q)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014

For the transition period from            to            .

Commission file number: 1-6311

Tidewater Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware (State of incorporation)				72-0487776 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

601 Poydras St., Suite 1500

New Orleans, Louisiana                70130

(Address of principal executive offices) (zip code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:              (504) 568-1010

Not Applicable

(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or of such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.   Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes ¨ No x

49,720,702 shares of Tidewater Inc. common stock $.10 par value per share were outstanding on July 25, 2014. Registrant has no other class of common stock outstanding.

1

PART I.  FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1.   FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

TIDEWATER INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

2

TIDEWATER INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

TIDEWATER INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

TIDEWATER INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

TIDEWATER INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EQUITY

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

6

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for the interim periods presented herein have been prepared in conformity with United States generally accepted accounting principles and, in the opinion of management, include all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring adjustments) necessary for a fair presentation of the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements at the dates and for the periods indicated as required by Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Results of operations for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results of operations for the respective full years. These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto in the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2014, filed with the SEC on May 21, 2014.

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Tidewater Inc. and its subsidiaries. Intercompany balances and transactions are eliminated in consolidation. The company uses the equity method to account for equity investments over which the company exercises significant influence but does not exercise control and is not the primary beneficiary. Unless otherwise specified, all per share information included in this document is on a diluted earnings per share basis.

The company made certain reclassifications to prior period amounts to conform to the current year presentation. These reclassifications did not have a material effect on the condensed consolidated statements of earnings, balance sheets or cash flows.

Common Stock Repurchase Program

In May 2014, the company’s Board of Directors authorized the company to spend up to $200.0 million to repurchase shares of its common stock in open-market or privately-negotiated transactions. The effective period for this authorization is July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. The company uses its available cash and, when considered advantageous, borrowings under its revolving credit facility or other borrowings, to fund any share repurchases. The company evaluates share repurchase opportunities relative to other investment opportunities and in the context of current conditions in the credit and capital markets.

In May 2013, the company’s Board of Directors authorized the company to spend up to $200 million to repurchase shares of its common stock in open-market or privately-negotiated transactions. The effective period for this authorization was July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. No shares were repurchased under the May 2013 program.

Dividends

The declaration of dividends is at the discretion of the company’s Board of Directors. The Board of Directors declared the following dividends for the quarters ended June 30:

7

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss

The changes in accumulated other comprehensive income by component, net of tax for the quarter ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 are as follows:

The following table summarizes the reclassifications from accumulated other comprehensive loss to the condensed consolidated statement of income for the quarters ended June 30, 2014 and 2013:

Income tax expense for interim periods is based on estimates of the effective tax rate for the entire fiscal year. The effective tax rate applicable to pre-tax earnings, for the quarters ended June 30 is as follows:

The 24% effective tax rates for the quarters ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 is lower than the U.S. statutory income tax rate of 35% primarily because the company has not recognized a U.S. deferred tax liability associated with temporary differences related to investments in foreign subsidiaries that are essentially permanent in duration.

The company’s balance sheet at June 30, 2014 reflects the following in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 740, Income Taxes:

The tax liabilities for uncertain tax positions are attributable to a foreign tax filing position and a permanent establishment issue related to a foreign joint venture. Penalties and interest related to income tax liabilities are included in income tax expense. Income tax payable is included in other current liabilities.

8

Unrecognized tax benefits, which would lower the effective tax rate if realized at June 30, 2014, are as follows:

With limited exceptions, the company is no longer subject to tax audits by U.S. federal, state, local or foreign taxing authorities for years prior to 2007. The company has ongoing examinations by various U.S. federal, state and foreign tax authorities and does not believe that the results of these examinations will have a material adverse effect on the company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

U.S. Defined Benefit Pension Plan

The company has a defined benefit pension plan (pension plan) that covers certain U.S. citizen employees and other employees who are permanent residents of the United States. Effective April 1, 1996, the pension plan was closed to new participation. In December 2009, the Board of Directors amended the pension plan to discontinue the accrual of benefits once the plan was frozen on December 31, 2010. This change did not affect benefits earned by participants prior to January 1, 2011. The company did not contribute to the defined benefit pension plan during the quarters ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, and does not expect to contribute to the plan during the remaining quarters of fiscal 2015.

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan

The company also maintains a non-contributory, defined benefit supplemental executive retirement plan (supplemental plan) that provides pension benefits to certain employees in excess of those allowed under the company’s tax-qualified pension plan. A Rabbi Trust has been established for the benefit of participants in the supplemental plan. The Rabbi Trust assets, which are invested in a variety of marketable securities (but not Tidewater stock), are recorded at fair value with unrealized gains or losses included in other comprehensive income. Effective March 4, 2010, the supplemental plan was closed to new participation. The supplemental plan is a non-qualified plan and, as such, the company is not required to make contributions to the supplemental plan. The company did not contribute to the supplemental plan during the quarters ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, and does not expect to contribute to the plan during the remaining quarters of fiscal 2015.

Investments held in a Rabbi Trust for the benefit of participants in the supplemental plan are included in other assets at fair value. The following table summarizes the carrying value of the trust assets, including unrealized gains or losses at June 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014:

The unrealized gains or losses in the fair value of the trust assets, net of income tax expense, are included in accumulated other comprehensive income. To the extent that trust assets are liquidated to fund benefit payments, gains or losses, if any, will be recognized at that time. The company’s obligations under the supplemental plan are included in ‘accrued expenses’ and ‘other liabilities and deferred credits’ on the consolidated balance sheet.

Postretirement Benefit Plan

Qualified retired employees currently are covered by a program which provides limited health care and life insurance benefits. Costs of the program are based on actuarially determined amounts and are accrued over the period from the date of hire to the full eligibility date of employees who are expected to qualify for these benefits. This plan is funded through payments as benefits are required.

9

Net Periodic Benefit Costs

The net periodic benefit cost for the company’s U.S. defined benefit pension plan and the supplemental plan (referred to collectively as “Pension Benefits”) and the postretirement health care and life insurance plan (referred to collectively as “Other Benefits”) is comprised of the following components:

Senior Notes, Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement

A summary of debt outstanding at June 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014, are as follows:

(A) Fair values approximate carrying values because the borrowings bear interest at variable rates.

(B) $600.0 million was available under the revolver at June 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014.

10

Norwegian Kroner Denominated Debt

A summary of the Norwegian Kroner (NOK) denominated borrowings outstanding at June 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014, and their U.S. dollar equivalents are as follows:

(C) Fair values approximate carrying values because the borrowings bear interest at variable rates.

Debt Costs

The company capitalizes a portion of its interest costs incurred on borrowed funds used to construct vessels. Interest and debt costs incurred, net of interest capitalized, for the quarter periods ended June 30, are as follows:

The components of basic and diluted earnings per share for the quarters ended June 30, are as follows:

11

Vessel and Other Commitments

The table below summarizes the company’s various vessel commitments to acquire and construct new vessels and ROVs, by vessel type, as of June 30, 2014:

The total cost of the various vessel new-build commitments includes contract costs and other incidental costs. The company has vessels under construction at a number of different shipyards around the world. The deepwater PSVs under construction range between 3,000 and 6,360 deadweight tons (DWT) of cargo capacity while the towing-supply vessels under construction are AHTS vessels that have 7,145 brake horsepower (BHP). The new-build vessels are estimated to deliver starting in August 2014, with delivery of the final new-build vessel expected in June 2016. The company also has new-build commitments for two ROVs at June 30, 2014 with delivery dates in November of 2014.

With its commitment to modernizing its fleet through its vessel construction and acquisition program over the past decade, the company has successfully replaced a significant number of the older vessels of its fleet with fewer, larger and more efficient vessels that have a more extensive range of capabilities. These efforts are expected to continue, with the company anticipating that it will use some portion of its future operating cash flows and existing borrowing capacity as well as possible new borrowings or lease finance arrangements in order to fund current and future commitments in connection with the fleet renewal and modernization program. The company continues to evaluate its fleet renewal program, whether through new construction or acquisitions, relative to other investment opportunities and uses of cash, including the current share repurchase authorization, and in the context of current conditions in the credit and capital markets.

Currently the company is continuing to experience substantial delay with one fast supply boat under construction in Brazil that was originally scheduled to be delivered in September 2009. On April 5, 2011, pursuant to the vessel construction contract, the company sent the subject shipyard a letter initiating arbitration in order to resolve disputes of such matters as the shipyard’s failure to achieve payment milestones, its failure to follow the construction schedule, and its failure to timely deliver the vessel. The company has suspended construction on the vessel and both parties continue to pursue that arbitration. The company has third party credit support in the form of insurance coverage for 90% of the progress payments made on this vessel, or all but approximately $2.4 million of the carrying value of the accumulated costs through June 30, 2014. The company had committed and invested $8.0 million as of June 30, 2014.

In December 2013, the company took delivery of the second of two deepwater PSVs constructed in a U.S. shipyard. In connection with the delivery of those vessels, the company and the shipyard agreed to hold $11.7 million in escrow with a financial institution pending resolution of disputes over whether all or a portion of those funds are due to the shipyard as the shipyard has claimed. Some of the disputes may be resolved by high level management meetings between the parties or through a structured mediation. The balance of the claims will need to be resolved through litigation in New York state court. Although formal dispute resolution efforts are currently at an early stage, initial negotiations have thus far failed to resolve the parties’ disputes, and the company has retained New York counsel to represent the company in the mediation and litigation procedures. The escrowed amounts have been included in the cost of the acquired vessels.

The company generally requires shipyards to provide third party credit support in the event that vessels are not completed and delivered timely and in accordance with the terms of the shipbuilding contracts. That third party credit support typically guarantees the return of amounts paid by the company and generally takes the form of

12

refundment guarantees or standby letters of credit issued by major financial institutions located in the country of the shipyard. While the company seeks to minimize its shipyard credit risk by requiring these instruments, the ultimate return of amounts paid by the company in the event of shipyard default is still subject to the creditworthiness of the shipyard and the provider of the credit support, as well as the company’s ability to successfully pursue legal action to compel payment of these instruments. When third party credit support that is acceptable to the company is not available or cost effective, the company endeavors to limit its credit risk by minimizing pre-delivery payments and through other contract terms with the shipyard.

Merchant Navy Officers Pension Fund

On July 15, 2013, a subsidiary of the company was placed into administration in the United Kingdom. Joint administrators were appointed to administer and distribute the subsidiary’s assets to the subsidiary’s creditors. The vessels owned by the subsidiary had become aged and were no longer economical to operate, which has caused the subsidiary’s main business to decline in recent years. Only one vessel generated revenue as of the date of the administration. As part of the administration, the company agreed to acquire seven vessels from the subsidiary (in exchange for cash) and to waive certain intercompany claims. The purchase price valuation for the vessels, all but one of which were stacked, was based on independent, third party appraisals of the vessels.

The company previously reported that a subsidiary of the company is a participating employer in an industry-wide multi-employer retirement fund in the United Kingdom, known as the Merchant Navy Officers Pension Fund (MNOPF). The subsidiary that participates in the MNOPF is the entity that was placed into administration in the U.K. MNOPF is that subsidiary’s largest creditor, and has claimed as an unsecured creditor in the administration. The Company believed that the administration was in the best interests of the subsidiary and its principal stakeholders, including the MNOPF. The MNOPF indicated that it did not object to the insolvency process and that, aside from asserting its claim in the subsidiary’s administration and based on the company’s representations of the financial status and other relevant aspects of the subsidiary, MNOPF will not pursue the subsidiary in connection with any amounts due or which may become due to the fund.

In December 2013, the administration was converted to a liquidation. That conversion allowed for an interim cash liquidation distribution to be made to MNOPF. The conversion is not expected to have any impact on the company. The liquidation is expected to be completed in calendar 2014. The company believes that the liquidation will resolve the subsidiary’s participation in the MNOPF. The company also believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements.

Sonatide Joint Venture

As previously reported, in November 2013, a subsidiary of the company and its joint venture partner in Angola, Sonangol Holdings Lda. (“Sonangol”), executed a new joint venture agreement for their joint venture, Sonatide. The new joint venture agreement is currently effective and will expire, unless extended, two years after an Angolan entity, which is intended to be one of the Sonatide group of companies, has been incorporated. The Angolan entity is expected to be incorporated in late 2014 after certain Angolan regulatory approvals have been obtained.

The challenges for the company to successfully operate in Angola remain significant. As the company has previously reported, on July 1, 2013, elements of new legislation (the “forex law”) became effective that require oil companies participating in concessions that engage in exploration and production activities offshore Angola to pay for goods and services provided by foreign exchange residents in Angolan kwanzas that are initially deposited into an Angolan bank account. The forex law also imposes documentation and other requirements on service companies such as Sonatide in order to effect payments that are denominated currencies other than Angolan kwanzas. The forex law (and interpretations of the forex law by a number of market participants absent official guidance from the National Bank of Angola or the government of Angola) have resulted in, and will likely continue to result in, substantial customer payments to Sonatide being made in Angolan kwanzas. Such a result has been, and could continue to be, unfavorable because the conversion of Angolan kwanzas into U.S. dollars and the subsequent expatriation of the funds may result in payment delays, currency devaluation risk prior to conversion of kwanzas to dollars, additional costs to convert kwanzas into dollars and potentially additional taxes.

13

In response to the new forex law, Tidewater and Sonangol negotiated an agreement (the “consortium agreement”) that is intended to allow the Sonatide joint venture to enter into contracts with customers that allocate billings for services provided by Sonatide between (i) billings for local services that are provided by a foreign exchange resident (that must be paid in kwanzas), and (ii) billings for services provided offshore (that can be paid in dollars). We anticipate that Sonatide will soon execute the agreed form of consortium agreement (which the company understands is comparable to arrangements utilized, or intended to be utilized, by other service companies operating in Angola).

The company understands that the National Bank of Angola may issue a clarifying interpretation of the forex law by the end of calendar 2014. Any clarifying interpretation provided by the National Bank of Angola, and the resulting method and form of payment for goods and services that is utilized by the oil companies operating offshore Angola, should allow Sonatide, the company and other market participants to better assess the risk profile of the Angolan market over the longer term (i.e., this is an industry issue).

As of June 30, 2014, the company had approximately $430 million in amounts due from Sonatide, largely reflecting unpaid vessel revenue (billed and unbilled) related to services performed by the company through the Sonatide joint venture. These amounts began to accumulate in late calendar 2012, when the initial provisions of the forex law relating to payments for goods and services provided by foreign exchange residents took effect (and payments were required to be paid into local bank accounts). Beginning in June 2013, when the second provision of the forex law took effect (and the local payments had to be made in kwanza), Sonatide generally accrued for but did not deliver invoices to customers for vessel revenue related to Sonatide and the company’s collective Angolan operations in order to minimize the exposure that Sonatide would be paid for a substantial amount of charter hire in kwanzas and into an Angolan bank. In the interim, the company has been using its credit facility and other arrangements to fund the substantial working capital requirements related to its Angola operations.

In the first quarter of fiscal 2015, Sonatide began sending invoices to those customers who have insisted on paying U.S. dollar denominated invoices in kwanza. As invoices are paid in kwanza, Sonatide will seek to convert those kwanzas into U.S. dollars and utilize those U.S. dollars to pay the amounts that Sonatide owes the company. That conversion and expatriation process is subject to those risks and considerations set forth above. In addition, since February 2014, Sonatide has been entering into several customer agreements that contain split dollar/kwanza payments (typically 70% dollars and 30% kwanzas). While the company is confident, based on advice of counsel, that these split payment contracts comply with current Angolan law, it is not clear if this type of contracting will be available to Sonatide over the longer term. To the extent the National Bank of Angola issues the above referenced clarifying interpretation of the forex law or standard market practices develop in Angola in regards to split payment contracts without objection by the National Bank of Angola, the company expects that Sonatide will more broadly utilize split payment contracts.

For the quarter ended June 30, 2014, the company collected approximately $91 million from Angolan customers, which represents slightly more than the approximately $87 million in revenue generated for the same period. Of the $91 million collected, approximately $59 million represented dollars held by Sonatide or dollars collected from other customers that did not need to be converted to U.S. dollars prior to payment to Tidewater. The remaining $32 million of the total amount collected resulted from Sonatide’s conversion of kwanzas to dollars and subsequent payment to Tidewater. The company believes that the process for converting kwanzas is functioning reasonably well given that the conversion process is still developing.

For the quarter ended June 30, 2014, Tidewater’s Angolan operations generated vessel revenues of approximately $87 million, or 23%, of its consolidated vessel revenue, from an average of approximately 83 Tidewater-owned vessels that are marketed through the Sonatide joint venture (four of which were stacked on average during the quarter ended June 30, 2014), and, for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, generated vessel revenues of approximately $98 million, or 29%, of consolidated vessel revenue, from an average of approximately 88 Tidewater-owned vessels (five of which were stacked on average during the quarter ended June 30, 2013).

14

The Sonatide joint venture owns ten vessels and certain other assets, in addition to earning commission income from Tidewater-owned vessels marketed through the Sonatide joint venture (owned 49% by Tidewater). As of June 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014, the carrying value of Tidewater’s investment in the Sonatide joint venture, which is included in “Investments in, at equity, and advances to unconsolidated companies,” is approximately $66 million and $62 million, respectively.

Due from affiliate at June 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014 of approximately $430 million and $430 million, respectively, represents cash received by Sonatide from customers and due to the company, costs paid by Tidewater on behalf of Sonatide and, finally, amounts due from customers that are expected to be remitted to the company through Sonatide.

Due to affiliate at June 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014 of approximately $118 million and $86 million, respectively, represents amounts due to Sonatide for commissions payable (approximately $51 million and $43 million, respectively) and other costs paid by Sonatide on behalf of the company.

Management is exploring ways to continue to profitably participate in the Angolan market while reducing the overall level of exposure of the company to the increased risks that the company believes currently characterize the Angolan market. Included among mitigating measures taken by the company to address these risks is the redeployment of vessels from time to time to other markets where demand for the company’s vessels remains strong. During the year ended March 31, 2014, the company redeployed vessels from its Angolan operations to other markets and also transferred vessels into its Angolan operations from other markets resulting in a net increase of one vessel operating in the area. Redeployment of vessels to other markets in the period beginning April 1, 2014 through July 31, 2014 has been more significant (net 9 vessels transferred out of Angola) than in prior periods.

We believe the global market for offshore support vessels is currently well balanced, with offshore vessel supply approximately equal to offshore vessel demand; however, there would likely be negative financial impacts associated with the redeployment of vessels to other markets, including mobilization costs and costs to redeploy Tidewater shore-based employees to other areas, in addition to lost revenues associated with potential downtime between vessel contracts. These financial impacts could, individually or in the aggregate, be material to our results of operations and cash flows for the periods when such costs would be incurred. If there is a need to redeploy vessels which are currently deployed in Angola to other international markets, Tidewater believes that there is sufficient demand for a majority of these vessels at prevailing market day rates.

Brazilian Customs

In April 2011, two Brazilian subsidiaries of Tidewater were notified by the Customs Office in Macae, Brazil that they were jointly and severally being assessed fines of 155.0 million Brazilian reais (approximately $70.3 million as of June 30, 2014). The assessment of these fines is for the alleged failure of these subsidiaries to obtain import licenses with respect to 17 Tidewater vessels that provided Brazilian offshore vessel services to Petrobras, the Brazilian national oil company, over a three-year period ending December 2009. After consultation with its Brazilian tax advisors, Tidewater and its Brazilian subsidiaries believe that vessels that provide services under contract to the Brazilian offshore oil and gas industry are deemed, under applicable law and regulations, to be temporarily imported into Brazil, and thus exempt from the import license requirement. The Macae Customs Office has, without a change in the underlying applicable law or regulations, taken the position that the temporary importation exemption is only available to new, and not used, goods imported into Brazil and therefore it was improper for the company to deem its vessels as being temporarily imported. The fines have been assessed based on this new interpretation of Brazilian customs law taken by the Macae Customs Office.

After consultation with its Brazilian tax advisors, the company believes that the assessment is without legal justification and that the Macae Customs Office has misinterpreted applicable Brazilian law on duties and customs. The company is vigorously contesting these fines (which it has neither paid nor accrued) and, based on the advice of its Brazilian counsel, believes that it has a high probability of success with respect to the overturn of the entire amount of the fines, either at the administrative appeal level or, if necessary, in Brazilian courts. In December 2011, an administrative board issued a decision that disallowed 149.0 million Brazilian reais (approximately $67.6 million as of June 30, 2014) of the total fines sought by the Macae Customs Office. In two separate proceedings in 2013, a secondary administrative appeals board considered fines totaling 127.0

15

million Brazilian reais (approximately $57.6 million as of June 30, 2014) and rendered decisions that disallowed all of those fines. The remaining fines totaling 28.0 million Brazilian reais (approximately $12.7 million as of June 30, 2014) are still subject to a secondary administrative appeals board hearing, but the company believes that both decisions will be helpful in that upcoming hearing. The secondary board decisions disallowing the fines totaling 127.0 million Brazilian reais are, however, still subject to the possibility of further administrative appeal by the authorities that imposed the initial fines. The company believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements.

Potential for Future Brazilian State Tax Assessment

The company is aware that a Brazilian state in which the company operates has notified two of the company’s competitors that they are liable for unpaid taxes (and penalties and interest thereon) for failure to pay state import taxes with respect to vessels that such competitors operate within the coastal waters of such state pursuant to charter agreements. The import tax being asserted is equal to a percentage (which could be as high as 16% for vessels entering that state’s waters prior to December 31, 2010 and 3% thereafter) of the affected vessels’ declared values. The company understands that the two companies involved are contesting the assessment through administrative proceedings before the taxing authority.

The company’s two Brazilian subsidiaries have not been similarly notified by the Brazilian state that they have an import tax liability related to their vessel activities imported through that state. Although the company has been advised by its Brazilian tax counsel that substantial defenses would be available if a similar tax claim were asserted against the company, if an import tax claim were to be asserted, it could be for a substantial amount given that the company has had substantial and continuing operations within the territory of the state (although the amount could fluctuate significantly depending on the administrative determination of the taxing authority as to the rate to apply, the vessels subject to the levy and the time periods covered). In addition, under certain circumstances, the company might be required to post a bond or other adequate security in the amount of the assessment (plus any interest and penalties) if it became necessary to challenge the assessment in a Brazilian court. The statute of limitations for the Brazilian state to levy an assessment of the import tax is five years from the date of a vessel’s entry into Brazil. The company has not yet determined the potential tax assessment, and according to the Brazilian tax counsel, chances of defeating a possible claim/notification from the State authorities in court are probable. To obtain legal certainty and predictability for future charter agreements and because the company has imported several vessels to start new charters in Brazil, the company filed several suits in 2011, 2012 and 2013, against the Brazilian state and has deposited (or, in recent cases, is in the process of depositing) the respective state tax for these newly imported vessels. As of June 30, 2014, no accrual has been recorded for any liability associated with any potential future assessment for previous periods based on management’s assessment, after consultation with Brazilian counsel, that a liability for such taxes was not probable.

Nigeria Marketing Agent Litigation

On March 1, 2013, Tidewater filed suit in the London Commercial Court against Tidewater’s Nigerian marketing agent for breach of the agent’s obligations under contractual agreements between the parties. The alleged breach involves actions of the Nigerian marketing agent to discourage various affiliates of TOTAL S.A. from paying approximately $19 million (including Naira and U.S. dollar denominated invoices) due to the company for vessel services performed in Nigeria. Shortly after the London Commercial Court filing, TOTAL commenced interpleader proceedings in Nigeria naming the Nigerian agent and the company as respondents and seeking an order which would allow TOTAL to deposit those monies with a Nigerian court for the respondents to resolve. On April 25, 2013, Tidewater filed motions in the Nigerian Federal High Court to stop the interpleader proceedings in Nigeria or alternatively stay them until the resolution of the suit filed in London. The company will continue to actively pursue the collection of those monies. On April 30, 2013, the Nigerian marketing agent filed a separate suit in the Nigerian Federal High Court naming Tidewater and certain TOTAL affiliates as defendants. The suit seeks various declarations and orders, including a claim for the monies that are subject to

16

the above interpleader proceedings, and other relief. The company is seeking dismissal of this suit and otherwise intends to vigorously defend against the claims made. The company has not reserved for this receivable and believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements.

In October, 2012, Tidewater had notified the Nigerian marketing agent that it was discontinuing its relationship with the Nigerian marketing agent. The company has entered into a new strategic relationship with a different Nigerian counterparty that it believes will better serve the company’s long term interests in Nigeria. This new strategic relationship is currently functioning as the company intended.

Venezuelan Operations

On February 16, 2010, Tidewater and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Claimants”) filed with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) a Request for Arbitration against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. As previously reported by Tidewater, in May 2009 Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”), the national oil company of Venezuela, took possession and control of (a) eleven of the Claimants’ vessels that were then supporting PDVSA operations in Lake Maracaibo, (b) the Claimants’ shore-based headquarters adjacent to Lake Maracaibo, (c) the Claimants’ operations in Lake Maracaibo, and (d) certain other related assets. The company also previously reported that in July 2009 Petrosucre, S.A., a subsidiary of PDVSA, took possession and control of the Claimants’ four vessels, operations, and related assets in the Gulf of Paria. It is Tidewater’s position that, through those measures, the Republic of Venezuela directly or indirectly expropriated the Claimants’ investments, including the capital stock of the Claimants’ principal operating subsidiary in Venezuela.

The Claimants alleged in the Request for Arbitration that each of the measures taken by the Republic of Venezuela against the Claimants violates the Republic of Venezuela’s obligations under the bilateral investment treaty with Barbados and rules and principles of Venezuelan law and international law. An arbitral tribunal was constituted under the ICSID Convention to resolve the dispute. The tribunal first addressed the Republic of Venezuela’s objections to the tribunal’s jurisdiction over the dispute. A hearing on jurisdiction was held in Washington, D.C. on February 29 and March 1, 2012.

On February 8, 2013, the tribunal issued its decision on jurisdiction. The tribunal found that it has jurisdiction over the claims under the Venezuela-Barbados bilateral investment treaty, including the claim for compensation for the expropriation of Tidewater’s principal operating subsidiary, but that it does not have jurisdiction based on Venezuela’s investment law. The practical effect of the tribunal’s decision is to exclude from the case the claims for expropriation of the fifteen vessels described above.

While the tribunal determined that it does not have jurisdiction over the claim for the seizure of the fifteen vessels, Tidewater received during fiscal 2011 insurance proceeds for the insured value of those vessels (less an additional premium payment triggered by those proceeds). Tidewater believes that the claims remaining in the case, over which the tribunal upheld jurisdiction, represent the most substantial portion of the overall value lost as a result of the measures taken by the Republic of Venezuela. Tidewater has discussed the nature of the insurance proceeds received for the fifteen vessels in previous quarterly and annual filings.

The tribunal has concluded the briefing and hearings to determine the merits of the claims over which the tribunal has jurisdiction. The final hearings on the merits were held in Washington, D.C. on June 9 -12, 2014. The merits phase will determine whether the Republic of Venezuela violated the Venezuela-Barbados bilateral investment treaty and will value the property expropriated by Venezuela. At the time of the expropriation, the principal operating subsidiary had sizeable accounts receivable from PDVSA and Petrosucre, denominated in both U.S. Dollars and Venezuelan Bolivars.

The next step is for the tribunal to issue its written determination on the merits. The time frame for issuance of that written determination by the tribunal is uncertain.

17

Legal Proceedings

Various legal proceedings and claims are outstanding which arose in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to these actions, will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. For additional information on certain of our ongoing legal proceedings, see Part II, Item 1: Legal Proceedings.

Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis

The company measures on a recurring basis and records at fair value investments held by participants in a supplemental executive retirement plan. The following table provides the fair value hierarchy for the plan assets measured at fair value as of June 30, 2014:

Other Financial Instruments

The company’s primary financial instruments consist of cash and cash equivalents, trade receivables and trade payables with book values that are considered to be representative of their respective fair values. The company periodically utilizes derivative financial instruments to hedge against foreign currency denominated assets and liabilities, currency commitments, or to lock in desired interest rates. These transactions are generally spot or forward currency contracts or interest rate swaps that are entered into with major financial institutions. Derivative financial instruments are intended to reduce the company’s exposure to foreign currency exchange

18

risk and interest rate risk. The company enters into derivative instruments only to the extent considered necessary to address its risk management objectives and does not use derivative contracts for speculative purposes. The derivative instruments are recorded at fair value using quoted prices and quotes obtainable from the counterparties to the derivative instruments.

Cash Equivalents. The company’s cash equivalents, which are securities with maturities less than 90 days, are held in money market funds or time deposit accounts with highly rated financial institutions. The carrying value for cash equivalents is considered to be representative of its fair value due to the short duration and conservative nature of the cash equivalent investment portfolio.

Spot Derivatives. Spot derivative financial instruments are short-term in nature and generally settle within two business days. The fair value of spot derivatives approximates the carrying value due to the short-term nature of this instrument, and as a result, no gains or losses are recognized.

The company had two spot contracts outstanding at June 30, 2014 which had a notional value of $6.7 million and settled by July 2, 2014. The company had four foreign exchange spot contracts outstanding at March 31, 2014, which had a notional value of $2.3 million and settled by April 2, 2014.

Forward Derivatives. Forward derivative financial instruments are generally longer-term in nature but generally do not exceed one year. The accounting for gains or losses on forward contracts is dependent on the nature of the risk being hedged and the effectiveness of the hedge. Forward contracts are valued using counterparty quotations, and we validate the information obtained from the counterparties in calculating the ultimate fair values using the market approach and obtaining broker quotations. As such, these derivative contracts are classified as Level 2.

The company did not have any forward contracts outstanding at June 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014.

The following table provides the fair value hierarchy for the company’s other financial instruments measured as of June 30, 2014:

Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Nonrecurring Basis

Asset Impairments

The company accounts for long-lived assets in accordance with ASC 360-10-35, Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets. The company reviews the vessels in its active fleet for impairment whenever events occur or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset group may not be recoverable. In such evaluation the estimated future undiscounted cash flows generated by an asset group are compared with the carrying amount of the asset group to determine if a write-down may be required. Active, non-stacked vessels are grouped together for impairment testing purposes with vessels of similar operating and marketing characteristics. Active vessel groupings are also subdivided between older vessels and newer vessels.

19

The company estimates cash flows based upon historical data adjusted for the company’s best estimate of expected future market performance, which, in turn, is based on industry trends. If an asset group fails the undiscounted cash flow test, the company uses the discounted cash flow method to determine the estimated fair value of each asset group and compares such estimated fair value (considered Level 3, as defined by ASC 360) to the carrying value of each asset group in order to determine if impairment exists. If impairment exists, the carrying value of the asset group is reduced to its estimated fair value.

In addition to the periodic review of its active long-lived assets for impairment when circumstances warrant, the company also performs a review of its stacked vessels and vessels withdrawn from service every six months or whenever changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of a vessel may not be recoverable. Management estimates each stacked vessel’s fair value by considering items such as the vessel’s age, length of time stacked, likelihood of a return to active service, actual recent sales of similar vessels, which are unobservable inputs. In certain situations we obtain an estimate of the fair value of the stacked vessel from third-party appraisers or brokers. The company records an impairment charge when the carrying value of a vessel withdrawn from service or a stacked vessel exceeds its estimated fair value. The estimates of fair value of stacked vessels are also subject to significant variability, are sensitive to changes in market conditions, and are reasonably likely to change in the future.

The below table summarizes the combined fair value of the assets that incurred impairments during the quarters ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, along with the amount of impairment. The impairment charges were recorded in gain on asset dispositions, net.

A summary of other assets at June 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014 is as follows:

20

A summary of other liabilities and deferred credits at June 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014 is as follows:

From time to time new accounting pronouncements are issued by the FASB that are adopted by the company as of the specified effective date. Unless otherwise discussed, management believes that the impact of recently issued standards, which are not yet effective, will not have a material impact on the company’s consolidated financial statements upon adoption.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. ASU 2014-09 supersedes prior revenue recognition guidance and provides a five step recognition framework that will require entities to recognize the amount of revenue to which it expects to be entitled for the transfer of goods and services. This new revenue recognition guidance is effective for the company in the first quarter of fiscal 2018 and may be implemented retrospectively to all years presented or in the period of adoption through a cumulative adjustment. The company believes that the impact of the implementation of this new guidance on its consolidated financial statements and disclosures will not be significant.

21

The following table provides a comparison of segment revenues, vessel operating profit, depreciation and amortization, and additions to properties and equipment for the quarters ended June 30, 2014 and 2013. Vessel revenues and operating costs relate to vessels owned and operated by the company while other operating revenues relate to the activities of the company’s shipyards (the remainder of which the company disposed of in the quarter ended June 30, 2013), remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), brokered vessels and other miscellaneous marine-related businesses.

22

The following table provides a comparison of total assets at June 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014:

Note A: Included in Corporate are vessels currently under construction which have not yet been assigned to a non-corporate reporting segment. A vessel’s construction costs are reported in Corporate until the earlier of the date the vessels is assigned to a non-corporate reporting segment or the date it is delivered. At June 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014, $250.1 million and $228.9 million, respectively, of vessel construction costs are included in Corporate.

The following table discloses the amount of revenue by segment, and in total for the worldwide fleet, along with the respective percentage of total vessel revenue for the quarters ended June 30, 2014 and 2013: