TDW Tidewater Inc

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, 2017, filed with the SEC on June 12, 2017.

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 condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared as if the company is a going concern and reflect the application of Accounting Standards Codification 852 “Reorganizations” (“ASC 852”). ASC 852 requires that the financial statements, for periods subsequent to the chapter 11 filing, distinguish transactions and events that are directly associated with the reorganization from the ongoing operations of the business.  Accordingly, certain expenses, gains and losses that are realized or incurred in the bankruptcy proceedings are recorded in “reorganization items” on the company’s condensed consolidated statements of earnings.  In addition, prepetition unsecured and under-secured obligations that may be impacted by the bankruptcy reorganization process have been classified as “liabilities subject to compromise” on the company’s condensed balance sheet at June 30, 2017. These liabilities are reported at the amounts expected to be allowed as claims by the Bankruptcy Court, although they may be settled for less.

The accompanying financial statements do not purport to reflect or provide for the consequences of the Chapter 11 proceedings. In particular, the financial statements do not purport to show: (i) the realizable value of assets on a liquidation basis or their availability to satisfy liabilities; (ii) the amount of prepetition liabilities that may be allowed for claims or contingencies, or the status and priority thereof; (iii) the effect on the statements of equity of any changes that may be made to the Company’s capitalization; or (iv) the effect on operations of any changes that may be made to the Company’s business.

(2) CHAPTER 11 PROCEEDINGS AND EMERGENCE

As previously reported, on July 17, 2017, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued its written order confirming the company’s consensual prepackaged plan of reorganization (the “Prepackaged Plan”) that had been filed with the Bankruptcy Court on May 17, 2017 (the “Petition Date”) in connection with the filing by the company and certain of its subsidiaries (the “Debtors”) of a petition with Bankruptcy Court seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On July 31, 2017 , the company and its affiliated chapter 11 debtors emerged from bankruptcy after successfully completing its reorganization pursuant to the Second Amended Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Tidewater and its Affiliated Debtors (the “Plan”), that was confirmed on July 17, 2017 by the Bankruptcy Court.

During the bankruptcy proceedings, the Debtors have operated as "debtors-in-possession" in accordance with applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The company has been operating in the ordinary course of business pursuant to motions filed by the Debtors and granted by the Bankruptcy Court.

Upon emergence of the Company from bankruptcy:

7

by a management incentive plan and the exercise of warrants issued to existing stockholders under the Prepackaged Plan as described below); and (c) new 8% fixed rate secured notes due in 2022 in the aggregate principal amount of $350 million (the “New Secu red Notes”).

The company and the Sale Leaseback Parties have not reached agreement with respect to the amount of the Sale Leaseback Claims. Accordingly, on the Effective Date, a portion of the above consideration in cash, New Creditor Warrants, and New Secured Notes in an amount that the company believes represents the maximum possible distributions owing on account of the Sale Leaseback Claims has been withheld from the cash, New Creditor Warrants, and New Secured Notes distributed to holders of allowed General Unsecured Claims on account of such disputed Sale

8

Leaseback Claims until they are resolved. To the extent the Sale Leaseback Claims are resolved for less than the amount withheld, the remainder will be distributed to holders of allowed General Unsecured C laims pro rata. Included in liabilities subject to compromise is $323.6 million related to the claims of the Sale Leaseback Parties.

The company’s emergence from chapter 11 bankruptcy has resolved the significant risks and uncertainties which previously raised substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.  

As a result of the filing of the Bankruptcy cases on May 17, 2017, we have classified unsecured prepetition liabilities that are expected to be impaired pursuant to the Prepackaged Plan as liabilities subject to compromise in our condensed consolidated balance sheet at June 30, 2017. Pre-petition liabilities that are subject to compromise are required to be reported at the amounts expected to be allowed, even if they may be settled for lesser amounts. If there was uncertainty at the time about whether a secured claim was under-secured, or would be impaired under the Prepackaged Plan, the entire amount of the claim was included in liabilities subject to compromise. The amounts classified at June 30, 2017 as liabilities subject to compromise represent the company’s current estimate of claims expected to be allowed under the Prepackaged Plan as of June 30, 2017.  

The company’s obligations under the Revolving Credit Facility, Senior Notes, Term Loan Facility and sale-leaseback agreements have been affected by the Prepackaged Plan which has been confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court. As such, the outstanding balances of these debt instruments, related accrued pre-petition interest and claims related to the rejection of sale-leaseback agreements and claims associated with the make-whole provisions included in the senior notes have been classified as liabilities subject to compromise in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2017.

Generally, actions to enforce or otherwise effect payment of pre-bankruptcy filing liabilities were stayed during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding. Although payment of pre-petition claims is generally not permitted, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Debtors’ “first day” motions allowing, among other things, the company to pay prepetition employee wages and benefits without interruption, maintain its insurance programs, utilize its current cash management system, and pay undisputed prepetition obligations owed to its vendors and trade creditors in the ordinary course of business. As a result of this approval, the company continues to pay certain pre-petition claims in designated categories and subject to certain terms and conditions in the ordinary course of business, and we have not classified these liabilities as subject to compromise in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2017. This is designed to preserve the value of the company’s businesses and assets. With respect to pre-petition claims, the company notified all known claimants of the deadline to file a proof of claim with the Court.

The company has been paying and intends to continue to pay post-petition claims in the ordinary course of business. 

The following table reflects pre-petition liabilities that are subject to compromise included in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2017. See Note (8) - “Indebtedness” for a specific discussion on the debt instruments and related balances subject to compromise:

9

ASC 852 requires that transactions and events directly associated with the reorganization be distinguished from the ongoing operations of the business. The company uses “Reorganization items” on its condensed consolidated statements of earnings (loss) to reflect the revenues, expenses, gains and losses that are the direct result of the reorganization of the business. The following table summarizes the components included in “Reorganization items”:

Dividends

The declaration of dividends is at the discretion of the company’s Board of Directors, and depends on the company’s financial results, cash requirements, future prospects, and other factors deemed relevant by the Board of Directors.

In January 2016, the company suspended the quarterly dividend program in order to preserve liquidity in an oilfield services market that has been negatively impacted by the precipitous drop in oil prices and corresponding reduction in global E&P spending.

10

The following table summarizes the reclassifications from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) to the condensed consolidated statement of income for the quarters ended June 30, 2017 and 2016:

For all periods prior to March 31, 2015, we 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. Beginning in the quarter ended June 30, 2015, we use a discrete effective tax rate method to calculate taxes for interim periods. 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, 2017.

Income tax expense for the quarter ended June 30, 2017 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, 2017 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 primarily attributable to 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.

Unrecognized tax benefits, which would lower the effective tax rate if realized at June 30, 2017, are as follows:

As of March 31, 2017, the company’s balance sheet reflected approximately $5.5 million of net deferred tax liabilities.  For the quarter ended June 30, 2017, the company has net deferred tax assets of approximately $45 million prior to a valuation allowance analysis.  

Management assesses all available positive and negative evidence to estimate the company’s ability to generate sufficient future taxable income of the appropriate character, and in the appropriate taxing jurisdictions, to permit use of existing deferred tax assets. A significant piece of objective negative evidence is a cumulative loss incurred over a three-year period in a taxing jurisdiction. Prevailing accounting practice is that such objective evidence would limit the ability to consider other subjective evidence, such as projections for future growth.

11

On the b asis of this evaluation, a valuation allowance of $45 million has been recorded against net deferred tax assets which are more likely than not to be unrealized.  The amount of deferred tax assets considered realizable could be adjusted if future estimates of U.S. taxable income change, or if objective negative evidence in the form of cumulative losses is no longer present and subjective evidence, such as financial projections and tax planning strategies, are given additional weight.

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 2010. 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 pension plan during the quarters ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, and currently does not expect to contribute to the pension plan during the remaining quarters of fiscal 2018.

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 the company’s stock), are recorded at fair value with unrealized gains or losses included in accumulated other comprehensive income (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 quarter ended June   30,   2017. The company contributed $0.1 million to the supplemental plan during the quarter ended June 30, 2016. The company expects to contribute  $ 0.1 million to the supplemental plan during the remaining quarters of fiscal 2018.

Investments held in a Rabbi Trust 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, 2017 and March 31, 2017:

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.

12

Postretirement Benefit Plan

Qualified retired employees currently are covered by a plan which provides limited health care and life insurance benefits. Costs of the plan 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 by the company as benefits are required.

Effective November 20, 2015, the company eliminated its post-65 medical coverage for all current and future retirees effective January 1, 2017.  The medical coverage remains unchanged for participants under age 65.

The company also has a defined benefit pension plan that covers certain Norway citizen employees and other employees who are permanent residents of Norway. Benefits are based on years of service and employee compensation. The company contributed 3.0   million NOK and 3.4   million NOK, (approximately $0.4   million and $0.5   million, respectively) to the Norway defined benefit pension plan during the quarters ended June   30,   2017 and 2016. The company currently does not expect to contribute to the Norway pension plan during the remaining quarters of fiscal 2018. The preceding net periodic benefit cost table includes the Norway pension plan.

13

On July 31, 2017, amendments related to the four Troms Offshore debt arrangements became effective. Refer to
Note (18) for additional information regarding the new terms of the Troms Offshore Debt.

The company recognizes interest expense incurred subsequent to its chapter 11 filing date only to the extent that such interest will be paid during the proceedings or that it is probable that it will be an allowed claim.  Accrued interest on the term loan, revolving line of credit and senior notes subsequent to the Petition Date was not an allowed claim in the Prepackaged Plan; therefore, the company did not record interest expense subsequent to that date. Had the term loan, revolving line of credit and senior notes not been compromised by the Prepackaged Plan, interest expense for the quarter ended
June 30, 2017 would have been approximately $20 million.

14

The company’s common stock and antidilutive options and restricted stock awards and units were cancelled on
July 31, 2017 in connection with emergence from bankruptcy.

The company has $6.2 million in unfunded capital commitments associated with the one 5,400 deadweight ton (DWT) deepwater platform supply vessel (PSV) under construction at June 30, 2017. The total cost of the new-build vessel includes contract costs and other incidental costs.  

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2017, the company rejected the delivery of a PSV under construction and withheld the final contractual milestone payment of $4.5 million for failure of the vessel to meet certain significant contract specifications.  Thereafter, the company delivered a formal notice of default to the shipyard demanding a cure of the deficiencies, following which the shipyard declared the company in default for refusing to accept delivery. Subsequently, the company submitted a demand to the shipyard seeking a refund of all amounts paid by the company to date, totaling approximately $43 million plus accrued contractual interest.  In March 2017, the shipyard filed a notice of arbitration alleging breach of contract with respect to the company’s rejection of the PSV and anticipatory breach of contract based on the company’s anticipated rejection of a second PSV under construction. Through this arbitration, the shipyard is seeking an order requiring the company to take delivery of both vessels and to reimburse the shipyard for certain costs incurred by the shipyard.  The company is evaluating its next steps in the arbitration. A date for arbitration has not yet been set. Approximately $48.7 million of accumulated costs

15

for the rejected vessel have been reclassified from construction in progress to other assets. The rejected vessel is not included in our vessel count and is not included in the table above. The shipyard has also informed the company that the second PSV under construction, and included in the table above, has been suspended and may not be tendered for delivery given the ongoing dispute. Accordingly, the expected delivery date is not known.

The company has experienced 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 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 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, 2017.

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 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.

Sonatide Joint Venture

The company has previously disclosed the significant financial and operational challenges that it confronts with respect to its substantial operations in Angola, as well as steps that the company has taken to address or mitigate those risks. Most of the company’s attention has been focused  in three areas: reducing the net receivable balance due the company from Sonatide, its Angolan joint venture with Sonangol, for vessel services; reducing the foreign currency risk created by virtue of provisions of Angolan law that require that payment for a significant  portion of the services provided by Sonatide be paid in Angolan kwanza; and optimizing opportunities, consistent with Angolan law, for services provided by the company to be paid for directly in U.S. dollars. These challenges, and the company’s efforts to respond, continue.

Amounts due from Sonatide (due from affiliate in the consolidated balance sheets) at June 30, 2017 and March 31, 2017 of approximately $253 million and $263 million, respectively, represent 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 costs incurred by the company on behalf of Sonatide. Approximately $46 million of the balance at June 30, 2017 represents 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 are, in part, supported by (i) approximately $84 million of cash (primarily denominated in Angolan kwanzas) held by Sonatide that is pending conversion into U.S. dollars and the subsequent expatriation of such funds and (ii) approximately $121 million of amounts due from the company to Sonatide, including $37.5 million in commissions payable by the company to Sonatide, with the balance related to costs incurred by Sonatide on behalf of the company.

For the quarter ended June 30, 2017, the company collected (primarily through Sonatide) approximately $15 million from its Angolan operations. Of the $15 million collected, approximately $13 million were U.S. dollars received by Sonatide on behalf of the company or U.S. dollars received directly by the company from customers. The balance of $2 million collected reflects Sonatide’s conversion of Angolan kwanza into U.S. dollars and the subsequent expatriation of the dollars and payment to the company. The company also reduced the net due from affiliate and due to affiliate balances by approximately $21 million during the quarter ended June 30, 2017 through netting transactions based on an agreement with the joint venture.

Amounts due to Sonatide (Due to affiliate in the consolidated balance sheets) at June 30, 2017 and March 31, 2017 of approximately $121 million and $133 million, respectively, represent amounts due to Sonatide for commissions payable and other costs paid by Sonatide on behalf of the company.

16

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

For the quarter ended June 30, 2017, the company’s Angolan operations generated vessel revenues of approximately $27 million, or 24%, of its consolidated vessel revenue, from an average of approximately 51 company-owned vessels that are marketed through the Sonatide joint venture (22 of which were stacked on average during the quarter ended June 30, 2017), and, for the quarter ended June 30, 2016, generated vessel revenues of approximately $39 million, or 24%, of consolidated vessel revenue, from an average of approximately 60 company-owned vessels (16 of which were stacked on average during the quarter ended June 30, 2016).

Sonatide owns seven vessels (four of which are currently stacked) and certain other assets, in addition to earning commission income from company-owned vessels marketed through the Sonatide joint venture (owned 49% by the company). As of June 30, 2017 and March 31, 2017, the carrying value of the company’s investment in the Sonatide joint venture, which is included in “Investments in, at equity, and advances to unconsolidated companies,” was approximately $49 million and $45 million, respectively.

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. Redeployment of vessels to and from Angola during the quarter ended June 30 , 2017 and year ended March 31 , 2017 has resulted in a net one and 22 vessels transferred out of Angola, respectively.

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 $46.9 million as of June 30, 2017). The assessment of these fines is for the alleged failure of these subsidiaries to obtain import licenses with respect to 17  company vessels that provided Brazilian offshore vessel services to Petrobras, the Brazilian national oil company, over a three-year period ended December 2009. After consultation with its Brazilian tax advisors, the company 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 ). Based on the advice of its Brazilian counsel, the company believes that it has a high probability of success with respect to overturning the entire amount of the fines, either at the administrative appeal level or, if necessary, in Brazilian courts. In May 2016, a final administrative appeal allowed fines totaling 3 million Brazilian reais (approximately $0.9 million as of June 30, 2017). The company intends to appeal this 3 million Brazilian reais administrative award to the appropriate Brazilian court and deposited 6 million Brazilian reais (approximately $1.8 million as of June 30, 2017) with the court . The 6 million Brazilian reais deposit represents the amount of the award and the substantial interest that would be due if the company did not prevail in this court action. The court action is in its initial stages. Fines totaling 30 million Brazilian reais (approximately $9.1 million as of June 30, 2017) are still subject to additional administrative appeals board hearings, but the company believes that previous administrative appeals board decisions will be helpful in those upcoming hearings for the vast majority of amounts still claimed by the Macae Customs Office. The remaining fines totaling 122 million (approximately $36.9 million as of June 30, 2017) of the original 155 million Brazilian reais of fines are now formally resolved in favor of the company and are no longer at issue. The company believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on the company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

17

Repairs to U.S. Flagged Vessels Operating Abroad

During fiscal 2015 the company became aware that it may have had compliance deficiencies in documenting and declaring upon re-entry to the U.S. certain foreign purchases for or repairs to U.S. flagged vessels while they were working outside of the U.S.  When a U.S. flagged vessel operates abroad, certain foreign purchases for or repairs made to the U.S. flagged vessel while it is outside of the U.S. are subject to declaration with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) upon re-entry to the U.S. and are subject to 50% vessel repair duty. During our examination of our filings made in or prior to fiscal 2015 with CBP, we determined that it was necessary to file amended forms with CBP to supplement previous filings.  We have amended several vessel repair entries with CBP and have paid additional vessel repair duties and interest associated with these amended forms. We continue to review and evaluate the return of other U.S. flagged vessels to the U.S. to determine whether it is necessary to adjust our responses in any of those instances. With respect to certain of our amended vessel repair entries, CBP has advised us that it is contemplating the assessment of civil penalties and interest for alleged violations of the vessel repair statute. In accordance with CBP regulations, we are protesting the assessment of civil penalties and interest and are requesting mitigation of those civil penalties. We anticipate that CBP will seek to impose additional vessel repair duty, civil penalties and interest pending its review of our other amended filings and we will continue to protest any such determinations in accordance with CBP’s guidelines. Therefore, the final amount of vessel repair duty and/or civil penalties and interest associated with amending various vessel repair entries is not known at this time.

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 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.

Legal Proceedings

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

On December 27, 2016, the annulment committee formed under the rules of the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) issued a decision on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s (“Venezuela”) application to annul the award rendered by an ICSID tribunal on March 13, 2015.  As previously reported, the award granted two subsidiaries of the Company (the “Claimants”) compensation for Venezuela’s expropriation of their investments in that country.  The nature of the investments expropriated and the progress of the ICSID proceeding were previously reported by the company in prior filings.  The annulment committee’s decision reduced the total compensation awarded to the Claimants to $36.4 million. That compensation is accruing interest at an annual rate of 4.5% compounded quarterly from May 8, 2009 to the date of payment of that amount ($16 million as of June 30, 2017). The annulment committee also left undisturbed the portion of the award that granted the Claimants $2.5 million in legal fees and other costs related to the arbitration. The reduction of $10 million in compensation from the earlier award of $46.4 million represents that portion of the tribunal’s award that the annulment committee determined had not been properly explained by the tribunal’s analysis.  The final aggregate award is therefore $54.9 million as of June 30, 2017. The award for that amount is immediately enforceable and not subject to any further stay of enforcement.  The annulment committee’s decision is not subject to any further ICSID review, appeal or other substantive proceeding, unless the company decides to pursue additional compensation through ICSID related to the portion of the award reduced by the annulment committee.  The company has not made any decision whether to pursue any such additional relief.

The company is committed to taking 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 in March 2015 as a final judgment by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  In addition, the company was successful in having the award recognized and entered in November 2016 as a final judgment of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.  Even with the recognition of the award in the United States and United Kingdom courts, the company recognizes that collection of the award may present significant practical challenges. The company is accounting for this matter as a gain contingency, and will record any such gain in future periods if and when the contingency is resolved, in accordance with ASC 450 Contingencies .

18

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.

Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis

The company’s plan assets are accounted for at fair value and are classified within the fair value hierarchy based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement, with the exception of investments for which fair value is measured using the net asset value (NAV) per share expedient.

The following table provides the fair value hierarchy for the supplemental plan assets measured at fair value as of June 30, 2017:

The following table provides the fair value hierarchy for the plan assets measured at fair value as of March 31, 2017:

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.

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.

19

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 material outstanding spot contracts at June 30, 2017   and had six foreign exchange spot contracts outstanding at March 31, 2017, which had a notional value of $1.5 million and settled April 4, 2017.

The following table provides the fair value hierarchy for the company’s other financial instruments measured as of June 30, 2017:

The following table provides the fair value hierarchy for the company’s other financial instruments measured as of March 31, 2017:

For disclosures related to assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis refer to Note (16).

A summary of other current assets at June 30, 2017 and March 31, 2017 is as follows:

A summary of net properties and equipment at June 30, 2017 and March 31, 2017 is as follows:

20

A summary of other assets at June 30, 2017 and March 31, 2017 is as follows: