TIDEWATER INC - Quarter Report: 2015 June (Form 10-Q)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015

For the transition period from                 to                 .

Commission file number: 1-6311

Tidewater Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

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

46,967,560 shares of Tidewater Inc. common stock $.10 par value per share were outstanding on July 31, 2015. Registrant has no other class of common stock outstanding.

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

TIDEWATER INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

(In thousands, except share and par value data)

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

2

TIDEWATER INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS

(Unaudited)

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

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

3

TIDEWATER INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(Unaudited)

(In thousands)

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

4

TIDEWATER INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

(In thousands)

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

5

TIDEWATER INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EQUITY

(Unaudited)

(In thousands)

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, 2015, filed with the SEC on May 28, 2015.

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 million to repurchase shares of its common stock in open-market or privately-negotiated transactions. In May 2015, the company’s Board of Directors authorized an extension of its May 2014 common stock repurchase program from its original expiration date of June 30, 2015 to June 30, 2016. In fiscal 2015, $100 million was used to repurchase common stock under the May 2014 share repurchase program. No shares were repurchased by the company during the period from March 31, 2015 to June 30, 2015 and as of the end of this period $100 million remained authorized and available to repurchase shares under the May 2014 share repurchase program. If shares are purchased in open market or privately-negotiated transactions pursuant to this share repurchase program, the company will use its available cash and/or, 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, the company’s own liquidity and in the context of current conditions in the credit and capital markets.

Dividends

The declaration of dividends is at the discretion of the company’s Board of Directors and will depend on the company’s financial results, cash requirements, future prospects, and other factors deemed relevant by the 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 loss by component, net of tax for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 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, 2015 and 2014:

We have historically calculated the provision for income taxes during interim reporting periods by applying an estimate of the annual effective tax rate for the full fiscal year to “ordinary” income or loss (pretax income or loss excluding unusual or infrequently occurring discrete items) for the reporting period. We have used a discrete effective tax rate method to calculate taxes for the three month period ended June 30, 2015. We determined that since small changes in estimated “ordinary” income would result in significant changes in the estimated annual effective tax rate, the historical method would not provide a reliable estimate for the fiscal three month period ended June 30, 2015.

Income tax expense for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 reflects tax liabilities in various jurisdictions that are based on revenue (deemed profit regimes) rather than pre-tax profits.

The company’s balance sheet at June 30, 2015 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 tax expense if realized at June 30, 2015, 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 2008. 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 pension plan is currently adequately funded and the company did not contribute to the pension plan during the quarters ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, and does not expect to contribute to the plan during the remaining quarters of fiscal 2016.

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 accumulated other comprehensive loss. 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, 2015 and 2014, and does not expect to contribute to the supplemental plan during the remaining quarters of fiscal 2016.

Investments held in the 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, 2015 and March 31, 2015:

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 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

In May 2015, the company amended and extended its existing credit facility. The amended credit agreement matures in June 2019 and provides for a $900 million, five-year credit facility consisting of a (i) $600 million revolving credit facility and a (ii) $300 million term loan facility.

A summary of debt outstanding at June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015, is as follows:

10

Other U.S. Dollar Denominated Debt

In May 2015, Troms Offshore entered into a $31.3 million, U.S. dollar denominated, 12 year unsecured borrowing agreement which matures in April 2027 and is secured by a company guarantee. The loan requires semi-annual principal payments of $1.3 million (plus accrued interest) and bears interest at a fixed rate of 2.92% plus a spread based on Tidewater Inc.’s consolidated funded indebtedness to total capitalization ratio (currently equal to 1.30% for a total rate of 4.22%).

A summary of the other U.S. dollar denominated borrowings outstanding at June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015 are as follows:

(A) Notes require semi-annual principal payments.

Norwegian Kroner Denominated Debt

A summary of the Norwegian Kroner (NOK) denominated borrowings outstanding at June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015, and their U.S. dollar equivalents are as follows:

(A) Notes require semi-annual principal payments.

(B) 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 quarters ended June 30, are as follows:

11

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

Vessel and Other Commitments

The table below summarizes the company’s various vessel commitments to acquire and construct new vessels, by vessel type, as of June 30, 2015:

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 4,200 and 6,000 deadweight tons (DWT) of cargo capacity while the towing-supply vessels under construction are vessels that have 7,145 brake horsepower (BHP). The new-build vessels began to deliver in July 2015, with delivery of the final new-build vessel expected in April 2017.

The company has successfully replaced the vast majority of the older vessels in its fleet with fewer, larger and more efficient vessels that have a more extensive range of capabilities. These efforts are expected to continue through the delivery of the remaining 16 vessels currently under construction, 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 completion of the fleet renewal and modernization program.

In April 2015, the company notified an international shipyard, which at the time was constructing six 7,145 BHP towing-supply-class vessels, that it was terminating the first three of the six towing-supply vessels as a result of late delivery and requested the return of $36.1 million in aggregate installment payments together with interest on these installments, or all but approximately $0.8 million of the carrying value of the accumulated costs through March 31, 2015. There was an aggregate $12.7 million in estimated remaining costs to be incurred on these three vessels at the time of the termination. In May 2015, the company made a demand on the Bank of China refundment guarantees that secure the return of these installments. In June 2015, the company entered into settlement agreements with the shipyard that provided for a return of the $36.1 million in aggregate installment payments, termination of the company’s obligation to pay any future amounts on these vessels, and the application of the accrued interest owing on the returned installments ($3.5 million) to offset future

12

installment obligations on other vessels at this shipyard. The interest “credit” is not secured by Bank of China refundment guarantees. The shipyard returned $24.2 million in June 2015, and $12 million in July 2015. The company has withdrawn its demands against the Bank of China refundment guarantees with respect to these three vessels. The company recorded an impairment charge of $0.8 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2016 to write off the amounts not recoverable from the shipyard.

In April 2015, the company entered into negotiations with an international shipyard constructing two 275-foot deepwater PSVs to resolve issues associated with the late delivery of these vessels. In May 2015, the company settled these issues with the shipyard. Under the terms of the settlement, the company can elect to take delivery of one or both completed vessels at any time prior to June 30, 2016. That date is subject to two six month extension periods, each extension requiring the mutual consent of the company and shipyard. If the company does not elect to take delivery of one or both vessels prior to June 30, 2016 (as that date may be extended), (a) the company is entitled to receive the return of $5.4 million in aggregate installment payments per vessel together with interest on these installments (or all but approximately $1 million of the company’s carrying value of the accumulated costs per vessel through March 31, 2015) and (b) the company will be relieved of the obligation to pay to the shipyard the $21.7 million remaining payment per vessel. The shipyard’s obligation to return the $5.4 million (plus interest) per vessel if the company elects not to take delivery of one or both vessels is secured by Bank of China refundment guarantees. These two vessels are not included in the preceding table of vessel commitments as of June 30, 2015.

The company is experiencing 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, 2015. During the first quarter of fiscal 2016, the company recorded an impairment charge of $2.4 million (representing amounts not covered by insurance) and reclassified the remaining $5.6 million from construction in progress to other non-current assets. This vessel is not included in the preceding table of vessel commitments as of June 30, 2015.

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 refundment guarantees or standby letters of credit issued by major financial institutions generally 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 pursue successfully 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

13

in the U.K. The 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, the MNOPF will not pursue the subsidiary in connection with any amounts due or which may become due to the MNOPF.

In December 2013, the administration was converted to a liquidation. That conversion allowed for an interim cash liquidation distribution to be made to the MNOPF. The conversion is not expected to have any impact on the company and the liquidation is expected to be completed in calendar 2015. 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 a new 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 by late 2015 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, additional elements of new legislation (the “forex law”) became effective that generally require oil companies that engage in exploration and production activities offshore Angola through governmental concessions 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 in currencies other than Angolan kwanzas. The forex law has resulted in substantial customer payments being made to Sonatide in Angolan kwanzas. A cumbersome payment process has imposed a burden on Tidewater’s management of its cash and liquidity, because the conversion of Angolan kwanzas into U.S. dollars and the subsequent expatriation of the funds has resulted in payment delays, additional operating costs and, through the company’s 49% ownership of Sonatide, foreign exchange losses. The payment process exposes the company to further risk of currency devaluation prior to Sonatide’s conversion of Angolan kwanza-denominated bank deposits to U.S. dollars and potentially additional taxes.

In response to the new forex law, Tidewater and Sonangol negotiated and signed an agreement that is set to expire, unless extended, in November 2015 (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 Angolan kwanzas), and (ii) billings for services provided by offshore residents (that can be paid in U.S. dollars). Sonatide successfully converted select customer contracts to this split billing arrangement during the quarters ended March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015. The company is unable to determine the impact that an inability to extend the consortium agreement would have on the existing split billing arrangements, and the ability to enter into new split billing arrangements. In addition, it is not clear if this type of contracting will be available to Sonatide over the longer term.

In November 2014, the National Bank of Angola issued new regulations controlling the sale of foreign currency. These regulations generally require oil companies to channel any U.S. dollar sales they choose to make through the National Bank of Angola to buy Angolan kwanzas that are required to be used to pay for goods and services provided by foreign exchange resident oilfield service companies. These foreign exchange resident oilfield services companies, in turn, generally have a need to source U.S. dollars in order to pay for goods and services provided offshore. The regulations continue to permit tripartite agreements among oil companies, commercial banks and service companies that provide for the sale of U.S. dollars by an oil company to a commercial bank in exchange for Angolan kwanzas. These same U.S. dollars are then sold onward by the commercial bank to the service company. The implementing regulations do, however, place constraints on those tripartite agreements that did not previously exist, and the period of time that the tripartite agreements will

14

be allowed remains uncertain. If tripartite agreements or similar arrangements are not available to service companies in Angola that have a need for U.S. dollars, then such service companies will be required to source U.S. dollars exclusively through the National Bank of Angola. Sonatide has had some success to date in negotiating tripartite agreements and it continues to work with customers, commercial banks and the National Bank of Angola in regards to utilizing these arrangements.

For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, the company collected (primarily through Sonatide) approximately $338 million from its Angola operations, which is slightly less than the approximately $351 million of revenue recognized for the same period. Of the $338 million collected approximately $159 million represented U.S. dollars received by Sonatide on behalf of the company or U.S. dollars directly received by the company from customers. The balance of $179 million that was collected in fiscal 2015 resulted from Sonatide’s converting Angolan kwanzas into U.S. dollars and subsequently expatriating the U.S. dollars to Tidewater. Additionally, the company received an approximate $10 million dividend payment from the Sonatide joint venture during the third quarter of fiscal 2015.

For the three months ended June 30, 2015, the company collected (primarily through Sonatide) approximately $101 million from its Angolan operations, which is $33 million more than the approximately $68 million of revenue recognized for the same period. Of the $101 million collected, approximately $49 million represented U.S. dollars received by Sonatide on behalf of the company or U.S. dollars directly received by the company from customers. The balance of $52 million collected resulted from Sonatide’s converting Angolan kwanza into U.S. dollars and subsequently expatriating the dollars to Tidewater.

The company believes that the process for converting Angolan kwanzas continues to function reasonably well, but the tight U.S. dollar liquidity situation continues in Angola. Sonatide continues to press its commercial banks with which it has relationships to increase the amount of U.S. dollars that are made available to Sonatide.

As of June 30, 2015, the company had approximately $385 million in amounts due from Sonatide, with approximately half of the balance reflecting invoiced but unpaid vessel revenue related to services performed by the company through the Sonatide joint venture. Remaining amounts due to the company from Sonatide is generally supported by cash (primarily denominated in Angolan kwanzas) held by Sonatide that is pending conversion into U.S. dollars and the subsequent expatriation of such funds.

For the three months ended June 30, 2015, Tidewater’s Angolan operations generated vessel revenues of approximately $68 million, or 23%, of its consolidated vessel revenue, from an average of approximately 70 Tidewater-owned vessels that are marketed through the Sonatide joint venture (seven of which were stacked on average during the three months ended June 30, 2015), and, for the three months ended June 30, 2014, generated vessel revenues of approximately $87 million, or 23%, of consolidated vessel revenue, from an average of approximately 83 Tidewater-owned vessels (four of which were stacked on average during the three months ended June 30, 2014).

Sonatide owns eight vessels (two of which are currently stacked) and certain other assets, in addition to earning commission income from Tidewater-owned vessels marketed through the Sonatide joint venture (owned 49% by Tidewater). In addition, as of June 30, 2015, Sonatide maintained the equivalent of approximately $111 million of primarily Angolan kwanza-denominated deposits in Angolan banks, largely related to customer receipts that had not yet been converted to U.S. dollars, expatriated and then remitted to the company, and approximately $30 million of U.S. dollar-denominated deposits in banks outside of Angola. As of June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015, 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 $62 million and $67 million, respectively.

Due from affiliate at June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015 of approximately $385 million and $420 million, respectively, represents cash received by Sonatide from customers and due to the company, amounts due from customers that are expected to be remitted to the company through Sonatide and, finally, reimbursable costs paid by Tidewater on behalf of Sonatide. The collection of the amounts due from customers and the subsequent conversion and expatriation process are subject to those risks and considerations set forth above.

15

Due to affiliate at June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015 of approximately $192 million and $186 million, respectively, represents amounts due to Sonatide for commissions payable (approximately $41 million and $66 million, respectively) and other costs paid by Sonatide on behalf of the company.

A new presidential decree regulating maritime transportation activities was enacted in Angola in 2014. Following recent discussions with port state authorities and local counsel, the company remains uncertain whether the authorities will interpret the decree to require one hundred percent Angolan ownership of local vessel operators such as Sonatide. This interpretation may result in the need to work with Sonangol to further restructure our Sonatide joint venture and our operations in Angola. The company has been informed by the authorities that enforcement of the new decree would commence in July 2015.The company is seeking further clarification of the new decree. The company is exploring potential alternative structures in order to comply.

The Angolan government enacted a new statute, which came into effect on June 30, 2015, for a new levy that could impose an additional 10% surcharge on certain foreign exchange transactions. The specific details of the levy have not yet been disclosed and it is not clear if this new statute will apply to Sonatide’s scope of operations. The company has undertaken efforts to mitigate the effects of the levy, in the event the levy does apply to Sonatide’s operations, including successfully negotiating rate adjustments and termination rights with some of its customers. The company will be unlikely to completely mitigate the effects of the levy, resulting in increased costs and lower margins, if the levy is interpreted to apply to Sonatide’s operations.

Management continues to explore ways to profitably participate in the Angolan market while looking for opportunities to reduce the overall level of exposure 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 there is adequate demand for the company’s vessels. During the year ended March 31, 2015, 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 13 vessels transferred out of Angola, including four smaller crewboats that were stacked outside of Angola. Redeployment of vessels to and from Angola during the quarter ended June 30, 2015 has resulted in a net four vessels transferred out of Angola.

As the company considers the redeployment of additional vessels from Angola to other markets, there would likely be temporary negative financial effects associated with such redeployment, 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 Tidewater’s results of operations and cash flows for the periods when such costs would be incurred. The recent decline in crude oil and natural gas prices, the reduction in spending expectations among E&P companies, the number of new-build vessels which are expected to deliver within the next two years and the resulting potential overcapacity in the worldwide offshore support vessel market may exacerbate such negative financial effects, particularly if a large re-deployment were undertaken by the company in the near- to intermediate-term.

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 million Brazilian reais (approximately $50 million as of June 30, 2015). 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.

16

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 million Brazilian reais (approximately $48 million as of June 30, 2015) 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 million Brazilian reais (approximately $41 million as of June 30, 2015) and rendered decisions that disallowed all of those fines. The remaining fines totaling 28 million Brazilian reais (approximately $9 million as of June 30, 2015) 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 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.

Nigeria Marketing Agent Litigation

In October 2012, Tidewater had notified the Nigerian marketing agent that it was discontinuing its relationship with the Nigerian marketing agent (Phoenix Tide Offshore Nigeria Limited) and two of its principals (H.H. The Otunba Ayora Dr.Bola Kuforiji-Olubi, OON and Olutokunbo Afolabi Kuforiji). 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.

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 $16 million (including U.S. dollar denominated invoices and Naira denominated invoices which have been adjusted for the devaluation of the Naira relative to the U.S. dollar) 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 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. On or about December 30, 2014, the company received notice that the Nigerian marketing agent had filed an action in the Nigerian Federal High court seeking to prevent the continuation of the proceedings initiated by Tidewater in the London Commercial Court. The company intends to vigorously defend that action.

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.

Repairs to U.S. Flagged Vessels Operating Abroad

The company recently became aware that it may have had compliance deficiencies in documenting and declaring upon re-entry to U.S. waters all repairs done on its U.S. flagged vessels while they were working outside the United States. When a U.S. flagged vessel operates abroad, any repairs made abroad must be declared to U.S. Customs. Duties must be paid for certain of those repairs upon return to U.S. waters. During our examination of our most recent filings with U.S. Customs, we determined that it was necessary to file amended forms with U.S. Customs. We continue to evaluate the return of other U.S. flagged vessels to the United States to determine whether it is necessary to adjust our responses in any of those instances. To the extent that further evaluation requires us to file amended entries, we do not yet know the magnitude of any

17

duties, fines or interest associated with amending the entries for these vessels. We are committed to bolstering our processes, procedures and training to ensure that we correctly identify all repairs made abroad if and when U.S. flagged vessels return to the United States in the future.

Currency Devaluation and Fluctuation Risk

Due to the company’s global operations, the company is exposed to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations and exchange rate risks on all charter hire contracts denominated in foreign currencies. For some of our non-U.S. contracts, a portion of the revenue and local expenses are incurred in local currencies with the result that the company is at risk of changes in the exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies. We generally do not hedge against any foreign currency rate fluctuations associated with foreign currency contracts that arise in the normal course of business, which exposes us to the risk of exchange rate losses. To minimize the financial impact of these items, the company attempts to contract a significant majority of its services in U.S. dollars. In addition, the company attempts to minimize its financial impact of these risks, by matching the currency of the company’s operating costs with the currency of the revenue streams when considered appropriate. The company continually monitors the currency exchange risks associated with all contracts not denominated in U.S. dollars. Discussions related to the company’s Angolan operations through the Sonatide joint venture are disclosed in this Note 7 above and in “Foreign Exchange Risk” under Item 3 “Qualitative and Quantitative Disclosure about Market Risk.”

Legal Proceedings

Arbitral Award for the Taking of the Company’s Venezuelan Operations

On March 13, 2015, the three member tribunal constituted under the rules of the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) awarded subsidiaries of the company compensation, including accrued interest and costs, for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s (“Venezuela”) expropriation of the investments of those subsidiaries in Venezuela. The award, issued in accordance with the provisions of the Venezuela-Barbados Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”), represented $46.4 million for the fair market value of the company’s principal Venezuelan operating subsidiary, plus interest from May 8, 2009 to the date of payment of that amount accruing at an annual rate of 4.5% compounded quarterly ($14.7 million as of June 30, 2015) and $2.5 million for reimbursement of legal and other costs expended by the company in connection with the arbitration. The aggregate award is therefore $63.6 million as of June 30, 2015. The nature of the investments expropriated and the progress of the ICSID proceeding were previously reported by the company in prior filings.

The company will take appropriate steps to enforce and collect the award, which is enforceable in any of the 150 member states that are party to the ICSID Convention. As an initial step, the company was successful in having the award recognized and entered on March 16, 2015 as a final judgment by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In July 2015, Venezuela applied to ICSID to annul the award and obtained a provisional stay of enforcement. The company has not yet received a timetable for briefing and hearings associated with the annulment proceedings. The company is evaluating whether to seek to lift the provisional stay of enforcement during the pendency of the annulment proceedings. Even in the absence of a stay of enforcement, the company recognizes that collection of the award may present significant practical challenges, particularly in the short term. Because the award has yet to be satisfied and post-award relief may be sought by Venezuela, the net impact of these matters on the company cannot be reasonably estimated at this time and the company has not recognized a gain related to these matters as of June 30, 2015.

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.

18

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 the supplemental plan. The following table provides the fair value hierarchy for the plan assets measured at fair value as of June 30, 2015:

The following table provides the fair value hierarchy for the plan assets measured at fair value as of March 31, 2015:

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 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.

19

Cash Equivalents. The company’s cash equivalents, which are securities with original 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 no spot contracts outstanding at June 30, 2015. The company had two foreign exchange spot contracts outstanding at March 31, 2015, which had a notional value of $2.3 million and settled by April 1, 2015.

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 those 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, 2015 or March 31, 2015.

The following table provides the fair value hierarchy for the company’s other financial instruments measured as of June 30, 2015:

The following table provides the fair value hierarchy for the company’s other financial instruments measured as of March 31, 2015:

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.

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.

20

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.

Gain/(loss) on asset dispositions, net for the first quarter of fiscal 2016 decreased $10.6 million, as compared to the same period in fiscal 2015 due to the recognition of $11.7 million of impairments to stacked vessels and other assets, $0.8 million related to the cancellation of vessel construction contracts and $2.4 million related to a vessel under construction that is currently the subject of an arbitration proceeding in Brazil (so as to reduce the carrying value of capitalized costs related to this vessel to the amount that is covered by third party credit support). These amounts were partially offset by the recognition of deferred gains related to sale/leaseback transactions of $5.8 million and $1.5 million of net gains from the sale of vessels and other assets during the quarter.

The below table summarizes the combined fair value of the assets that incurred impairments during the quarters ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, along with the amount of impairment. The impairment charges were recorded in gain/(loss) on asset dispositions, net.

A summary of other assets at June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015 is as follows:

A summary of accrued expenses at June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015 is as follows:

21

A summary of other current liabilities at June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015 is as follows:

A summary of other liabilities and deferred credits at June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015 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. In July 2015, the FASB permitted early adoption and deferred the effective date of this guidance one year, therefore, it will be effective for the company in the first quarter of fiscal 2019 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.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-03, Interest-Imputation of Interest: Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issue Costs which requires that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, consistent with debt discounts. The recognition and measurement guidance for debt issuance costs are not affected by this guidance. This new guidance is effective for the company in the first quarter of fiscal 2017. The company believes that the impact of the implementation of this new guidance on its consolidated financial statements and disclosures will not be significant.

In February 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-02, Consolidation – Amendments to the Consolidation Analysis, which affects reporting entities that are required to evaluate whether certain legal entities should be consolidated. The ASU modifies the evaluation of whether limited partnerships and similar legal entities are variable interest entities (“VIEs”) or voting interest entities, eliminates the presumption that a general partner should consolidate a limited partnership and affects the consolidation analysis of reporting entities that are involved with VIEs, particularly those that have fee arrangements and related party relationships. This new guidance is effective for the company in the first quarter of fiscal 2017. The company is in the process of evaluating whether adoption of this update will have a material impact on its financial statements.

22

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, 2015 and 2014. Vessel revenues and operating costs relate to vessels owned and operated by the company while other operating revenues relate to the activities of the remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), brokered vessels and other miscellaneous marine-related businesses.

23

The following table provides a comparison of total assets at June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015:

(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, 2015 and March 31, 2015, $181.5 million and $235.2 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, 2015 and 2014:

24

The company historically performed its annual goodwill impairment test at the reporting unit level using carrying amounts as of December 31 or more frequently if events and circumstances indicate that goodwill might be impaired.

During the quarter ended December, 31, 2014 the company performed its annual goodwill impairment assessment and determined that the rapid and significant decline in crude oil and natural gas prices (which occurred and accelerated throughout the latter part of the company’s third fiscal quarter), and the expected short to intermediate term effect that the downturn might have on levels of exploration and production activity would likely have a negative effect on average day rates and utilization levels of the company’s vessels. Expected future cash flow analyses using the projected average day rates and utilization levels in this new commodity pricing environment were included in the company’s valuation models and indicated that the carrying value of the Americas and Sub-Saharan Africa/Europe reporting units were less than their respective fair values. A goodwill impairment charge of $283.7 million, to write-off the company’s remaining goodwill, was recorded during the quarter ended December 31, 2014.

Goodwill by reportable segment at June 30, 2015 and 2014 is as follows: