Note 9 Commitments and Contingencies

​

Contingencies

​

Income Tax

​

We operate in a number of countries and our tax returns filed in those jurisdictions are subject to review and examination by tax authorities within those jurisdictions. We do not recognize the benefit of income tax positions we believe are more likely than not to be disallowed upon challenge by a tax authority. If any tax authority successfully challenges our operational structure, intercompany pricing policies or the taxable presence of our subsidiaries in certain countries, if the terms of certain income tax treaties are interpreted in a manner that is adverse to our structure, or if we lose a material tax dispute in any country, our effective tax rate on our worldwide earnings could change substantially.

​

In certain jurisdictions we have recognized deferred tax assets and liabilities. Judgment and assumptions are required in determining whether deferred tax assets will be fully or partially utilized. When we estimate that all or some

portion of certain deferred tax assets such as net operating loss carryforwards will not be utilized, we establish a valuation allowance for the amount we determine to be more likely than not unrealizable. We continually evaluate strategies that could allow for future utilization of our deferred assets. Any change in the ability to utilize such deferred assets will be accounted for in the period of the event affecting the valuation allowance. If facts and circumstances cause us to change our expectations regarding future tax consequences, the resulting adjustments could have a material effect on our financial results or cash flow. At this time, we consider it more likely than not that we will have sufficient taxable income in the future that will allow us to realize the deferred tax assets that we have recognized. However, it is possible that some of our recognized deferred tax assets, relating to net operating loss carryforwards and tax credits, could expire unused or could carryforward indefinitely without utilization. Therefore, unless we are able to generate sufficient taxable income from our component operations, a substantial valuation allowance to reduce our deferred tax assets may be required, which would materially increase our tax expense in the period the allowance is recognized and materially adversely affect our results of operations and statement of financial condition.

​

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law in the United States on July 4, 2025. We are currently evaluating the income tax impacts of the law, but we do not expect it to have a material impact on our financial statements.

​

Litigation

​

Nabors and its subsidiaries are defendants or otherwise involved in a number of lawsuits in the ordinary course of business. We estimate the range of our liability related to pending litigation when we believe the amount and range of loss can be estimated. We record our best estimate of a loss when the loss is considered probable. When a liability is probable and there is a range of estimated loss with no best estimate in the range, we record the minimum estimated liability related to the lawsuits or claims. As additional information becomes available, we assess the potential liability related to our pending litigation and claims and revise our estimates. Due to uncertainties related to the resolution of lawsuits and claims, the ultimate outcome may differ from our estimates. For matters where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and significant, we disclose the nature of the matter and a range of potential exposure, unless an estimate cannot be made at the time of disclosure. In the opinion of management and based on liability accruals provided, our ultimate exposure with respect to these pending lawsuits and claims is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or cash flows, although they could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations for a particular reporting period.

​

In March 2011, the Court of Ouargla entered a judgment of approximately $21.8 million (at June 30, 2025 exchange rates) against us relating to alleged violations of Algeria’s foreign currency exchange controls, which require that goods and services provided locally be invoiced and paid in local currency. The case relates to certain foreign currency payments made to us by CEPSA, a Spanish operator, for wells drilled in 2006. Approximately $7.5 million of the total contract amount was paid offshore in foreign currency, and approximately $3.2 million was paid in local currency. The judgment includes fines and penalties of approximately four times the amount at issue. We have appealed the ruling based on our understanding that the law in question applies only to resident entities incorporated under Algerian law. An intermediate court of appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling, and we appealed the matter to the Supreme Court. On September 25, 2014, the Supreme Court overturned the verdict against us, and the case was reheard by the Ouargla Court of Appeals on March 22, 2015 in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion. On March 29, 2015, the Ouargla Court of Appeals reinstated the initial judgment against us. We appealed this decision again to the Supreme Court, which again overturned the appeals court’s decision. The case was moved back to the court of appeals, which, once again, reinstated the verdict, failing to abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling. Accordingly, we appealed once more to the Supreme Court to try to get a final ruling on the matter. On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court cancelled the judgment of the Ouargla Court of Appeals, ruled in our favor and sent the case back to a different court, the Algiers Court of Appeals. While our payments were consistent with our historical operations in the country, and, we believe, those of other multinational corporations there, as well as interpretations of the law by the Central Bank of Algeria, the ultimate resolution of this matter could result in a loss of up to $13.8 million in excess of amounts accrued.

​

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements (Including Guarantees)

​

We are a party to some transactions, agreements or other contractual arrangements defined as “off-balance sheet arrangements” that could have a material future effect on our financial position, results of operations, liquidity and capital resources. The most significant of these off-balance sheet arrangements include the A/R Facility (see Note 5—Accounts Receivable Purchase and Sales Agreements) and certain agreements and obligations under which we provide

financial or performance assurance to third parties. Certain of these financial or performance assurances serve as guarantees, including standby letters of credit issued on behalf of insurance carriers in conjunction with our workers’ compensation insurance program and other financial surety instruments such as bonds. In addition, we have provided indemnifications, which serve as guarantees, to some third parties. These guarantees include indemnification provided by Nabors to our share transfer agent and our insurance carriers. We are not able to estimate the potential future maximum payments that might be due under our indemnification guarantees.

​

Management believes the likelihood that we would be required to perform or otherwise incur any material losses associated with any of these guarantees is remote. The following table summarizes the total maximum amount of financial guarantees issued by Nabors:

​

​