COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
12 Months Ended | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dec. 31, 2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The Company’s unfunded capital commitments as of December 31, 2017 consisted primarily of agreements to purchase helicopters and totaled $117.7 million, of which $106.4 million is payable in 2018 with the balance payable through 2019. The non-cancellable portion of helicopter commitments payable in 2018 was $2.8 million. The Company also had $1.3 million of deposits paid on options not yet exercised. The Company may terminate $116.2 million of its total commitments, inclusive of deposits paid on options not yet exercised, without further liability other than liquidated damages of $2.6 million in the aggregate.
Brazilian Tax Disputes
The Company is disputing assessments of approximately $7.1 million in taxes, penalties and interest levied by the municipal authorities of Rio de Janeiro (for the period between 2000 to 2005) and Macaé (for the period between 2001 to 2006) (collectively, the “Municipal Assessments”). The Company believes that, based on its interpretation of tax legislation supported by clarifying guidance provided by the Supreme Court of Brazil with respect to the issue in a 2006 ruling, it is in compliance with all applicable tax legislation, has paid all applicable taxes, penalties and interest and plans to defend these claims vigorously at the administrative levels in each jurisdiction. In the event the Municipal Assessments are upheld at the last administrative level, it may be necessary for the Company to deposit the amounts at issue as security to pursue further appeals. In 2015, the Company received a final, unfavorable ruling with respect to a similar assessment levied by the Rio de Janeiro State Treasury for the periods between 1994 to 1998 (the “1998 Assessments”). The 1998 Assessments were upheld without taking into consideration the benefit of the clarifying guidance issued by the Supreme Court following the assertion of the claims. The final adjudication of the 1998 Assessments requires payment of amounts that are within the established accruals, will be paid in multiple installments over time and are not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. At December 31, 2017, it is not possible to determine the outcome of the Municipal Assessments, but the Company does not expect that the outcome would have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position or results of operations. In addition, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the likelihood or potential amount of assessments that may be issued for any subsequent periods.
The Company is disputing responsibility for $3.0 million of employer social security contributions required to have been remitted by one of its customers relating to the period from 1995 to 1998. Although the Company may be deemed co-responsible for such remittances under the local regulatory regime, the customer’s payments to the Company against presented invoices were made net of the specific remittances required to have been made by the customer and at issue in the claim. As such, the Company plans to defend this claim vigorously. At December 31, 2017, it is not possible to determine the outcome of this matter, but the Company does not expect that the outcome would have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position or results of operations.
The Company is disputing certain penalties that are being assessed by the State of Rio de Janeiro in respect of the Company’s alleged failure to submit accurate documentation and to fully comply with filing requirements with respect to certain value-added taxes. The Company elected to make payment of $0.2 million in installments over time to satisfy a portion of these penalties. Upon confirming with the asserting authority that the originally proposed penalties of $1.6 million with respect to the balance of the assessments were calculated based on amounts containing a typographical error, the aggregate penalties that remain in dispute total $0.4 million. At December 31, 2017, it is not possible to determine the outcome of this matter, but the Company does not expect that the outcome would have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position or results of operations.
The Company is disputing the imposition of $1.0 million in fines levied by the Brazilian customs authorities. These fines relate to the Company’s alleged failure to comply with certain deadlines under the temporary regime pursuant to which it imports helicopters into Brazil. In order to dispute such fines and pursue its legal remedies within the judicial system, the Company deposited certain amounts at issue as security into an escrow account with the presiding judge in the matters who controls the release of such funds pending the outcome. The Company believes its documentation evidences its timely compliance with the relevant deadlines. As such, the Company plans to defend these claims vigorously. At December 31, 2017, it is not possible to determine the outcome of these matters, but the Company does not expect that the outcome would have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position or results of operations.
The Company is disputing fines of $0.3 million sought by taxing authorities in Brazil following the final adjudication to disallow certain tax credits applied by the Company to offset certain social tax liabilities. The fine is calculated as 50% of the incremental tax liability resulting from the disallowance of the tax credits and has been applied without taking into account the circumstances relating to the disallowance of such tax credits. The constitutionality of such fines is under review by the Supreme Court in Brazil. There are a number of cases in which taxpayers have received favorable rulings due to the lack of constitutionality of the law. As such, the Company plans to defend this claim vigorously. At December 31, 2017, it is not possible to determine the outcome, but the Company does not expect that it would have a material adverse impact on its business, financial position or results of operations.
The Company is disputing contingent fees of $0.6 million sought by its former tax consultant that have been calculated based on unrealized tax savings attributed to the consultant’s suggested tax strategies. The Company contends that fees are due only upon realized tax savings. At December 31, 2017, it is not possible to determine the outcome of these matters, but the Company does not expect that the outcome would have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position or results of operations.
In the normal course of business, the Company may become involved in various employment-related litigation matters. At December 31, 2017, it is not possible to determine the outcome of several of these claims wherein an aggregate of $0.1 million above the Company’s established accrual is being sought. The Company does not expect that the outcome with respect to such claims would have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position or results of operations.
The Company is also disputing claims from the Brazilian tax authorities with respect to federal customs taxes levied upon the helicopters leased by the Company and imported into Brazil under a temporary regime and subject to re-export. In order to dispute such assessments and pursue its available legal remedies within the judicial system, the Company deposited the amounts at issue as security into an escrow account that serves as security and with the presiding judge in the matters controlling the release of such funds. The Company believes that, based on its and interpretation of tax legislation and well established aviation industry practice, it is not required to pay such taxes and plans to defend these claims vigorously. At December 31, 2017, it is not possible to determine the outcome of this matter, but the Company does not expect that the outcome would have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position or results of operations.
As it relates to the specific cases referred to above, the Company currently anticipates that any administrative fine or penalty ultimately would not have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. The Company has deposited $10.3 million into escrow accounts controlled by the court with respect to certain of the cases described above and has fully reserved such amounts subject to final determination and the judicial release of such escrow deposits. These estimated liabilities are based on the Company’s assessment of the nature of these matters, their progress toward resolution, the advice of legal counsel and outside experts as well as management’s intentions and experience.
Other
On November 21, 2016, we filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas against Airbus Helicopters, Inc. and Airbus Helicopters S.A.S. (collectively, “Airbus”) alleging breaches of various contracts between us, fraudulent inducement and unjust enrichment in connection with the sale by Airbus of H225 model helicopters to us. On October 26, 2017, we added claims against Airbus for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and on December 28, 2017, we amended our complaint to seek damages attributable to the impact of Airbus’ unlawful acts on the value of an H225 that we purchased from another helicopter operator. We seek compensation for our monetary damages in an amount to be determined. We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation.
From time to time, we are involved in various legal actions incidental to our business, including actions relating to employee claims, actions relating to medical malpractice claims, various tax issues, grievance hearings before labor regulatory agencies, and miscellaneous third party tort actions. The outcome of these proceedings is not predictable. However, based on current circumstances, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these proceedings, after considering available defenses and any insurance coverage or indemnification rights, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Settlements
In April 2014, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Airbus Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter), a division of Airbus Group (formerly European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company), with respect to the extended suspension of operations of H225 heavy helicopters in 2012 and 2013. The settlement agreement provided for certain service and product credit discounts available to the Company to be applied against support services available from Airbus Helicopters covering spare parts, repair and overhaul, service bulletins, technical assistance or other services. During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company utilized such credits in the amount of $1.7 million and $5.0 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2016, the Company had utilized all credits available under the agreement.
Minimum Lease Payments
As of December 31, 2017, the Company leased four helicopters and certain facilities and equipment. These leasing agreements have been classified as operating leases for financial reporting purposes and related rental fees are charged to expense over the lease terms. The leases generally contain purchase and lease renewal options or rights of first refusal with respect to sale or lease of the equipment. The lease terms range in duration from one to ten years. Total rental expense for the Company’s operating leases for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 was $5.5 million, $5.7 million and $4.5 million, respectively. The Company’s scheduled minimum lease payments under operating leases that have a remaining term in excess of one year as of December 31, 2017 were as follows (in thousands):
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||