Table of Contents

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

PROXY STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 14(A) OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Filed by the Registrant    x

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant    ¨

Check the appropriate box:

Tidewater Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

Table of Contents

TIDEWATER INC.

601 Poydras Street, Suite 1500

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

June 28, 2013

To Our Stockholders:

You are cordially invited to attend the 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Tidewater Inc. to be held at the Pan-American Life Center Auditorium, 11th Floor, 601 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, on August 1, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., Central Time.

The attached Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement describe the formal business to be conducted at the meeting. Our directors and officers will be present to respond to your questions.

You are requested to vote by proxy as promptly as possible. You may vote by signing, dating, and returning the enclosed proxy card in the envelope provided. You may also vote by telephone or online by following the instructions on the proxy card. If you attend the meeting, which we hope that you will, you may vote in person even if you previously voted by proxy.

Sincerely,

DEAN E. TAYLOR

Chairman of the Board

Table of Contents

TIDEWATER INC.

601 Poydras Street, Suite 1500

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

The 2013 Annual Meeting of the Stockholders of Tidewater Inc. will be held in the Pan-American Life Center Auditorium, 11th Floor, 601 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, on August 1, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., Central Time, for the following purposes:

Only stockholders of record at the close of business on June 13, 2013 are entitled to notice of and to vote at the 2013 annual meeting.

Your vote is important. If you are unable to attend in person and wish to have your shares voted, please complete, date, and sign the enclosed proxy card, and return it in the accompanying envelope as promptly as possible. Alternatively, you may vote by telephone or online as explained on the enclosed proxy card. You may revoke your proxy by giving a revocation notice to our Secretary at any time before the 2013 annual meeting, by delivering timely a proxy bearing a later date, or by voting in person at the meeting.

By Order of the Board of Directors

BRUCE D. LUNDSTROM

Executive Vice President,

General Counsel and Secretary

New Orleans, Louisiana

June 28, 2013

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF OUR

PROXY MATERIALS

FOR THE ANNUAL STOCKHOLDER MEETING ON AUGUST 1, 2013.

This proxy statement and our 2013 annual report

are available at www.edocumentview.com/TDW

Table of Contents

INFORMATION ABOUT ATTENDING THE ANNUAL MEETING

If you plan to attend the meeting in person, please bring the following:

“Street Name” means your shares are held of record by brokers, banks, or other institutions.

Acceptable proof of ownership is a letter from your broker, bank, or other nominee confirming that you were the beneficial owner of our stock on the record date or an account statement showing that you were the beneficial owner of our stock on the record date.

We reserve the right to deny admission to the meeting to any person other than a stockholder of record on the record date (or a duly-designated proxy) or a beneficial owner of shares held in street name on the record date who has followed the procedures outlined above.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

TIDEWATER INC.

601 Poydras Street, Suite 1500

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

PROXY STATEMENT

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING AND VOTING

Q: How many votes can be cast by all stockholders?

1

Table of Contents

If your shares are held on your behalf in a stock brokerage account or by a bank or other nominee, you are the “beneficial owner” of shares held in “street name” and the proxy materials have been forwarded to you by your broker, bank, or nominee who is considered, with respect to those shares, the stockholder of record. As the beneficial owner, you have the right to instruct your broker, bank, or nominee as to how to vote your shares by using the voting instruction form included in the mailing or by following their instructions for voting by telephone or the internet.

Shares represented by proxies that include broker non-votes on a given proposal will be considered present at the meeting for purposes of determining a quorum, but those shares will not be considered to be represented at the meeting for purposes of calculating the vote with respect to that proposal.

2

Table of Contents

If you do not vote shares registered in your name, your shares will not be voted. However, the company may vote your shares if you have executed and returned a blank or incomplete proxy card (see “What happens if I return a proxy card without voting instructions?” below regarding record holders).

If you are a stockholder of record and you execute and return a blank or incomplete proxy card without voting instructions, your shares will be voted (i) FOR each of the 12 director nominees, (ii) FOR the advisory say-on-pay vote, (iii) FOR the Tidewater Inc. Executive Officer Annual Incentive Plan, and (iv) FOR the ratification of the selection of Deloitte & Touche as our independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2014.

If you are a beneficial owner of shares and do not give voting instructions to your broker, bank, or nominee, your broker, bank, or nominee will be entitled to vote your shares only with respect to those items over which it has discretionary authority to vote, as discussed above.

3

Table of Contents

Majority Voting Policy in Director Elections.    Although our directors are elected by plurality vote, our board has adopted a majority voting policy requiring any nominee for director who receives a greater number of “WITHHELD” votes than “FOR” votes in an uncontested election to tender his or her resignation for consideration by our board’s nominating and corporate governance committee. We have provided more information about our majority voting policy in this proxy statement under the heading “Election of Directors—Majority Voting Policy.”

Any Other Matters.    Any other matter that properly comes before the annual meeting will be decided by the vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of common stock present in person or represented by proxy, except where a different vote is required by statute, our certificate of incorporation, or our bylaws.

4

Table of Contents

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS

The table below shows the name, address and stock ownership of each person known by us to own beneficially more than 5% of our common stock as of June 13, 2013.

5

Table of Contents

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF MANAGEMENT

The following table sets forth the beneficial ownership of our common stock as of June 13, 2013, by each director, by each executive officer named in the Summary Compensation Table (“named executive” or “NEO”), and by all directors and executive officers as a group:

6

Table of Contents

7

Table of Contents

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

(PROPOSAL 1)

Our directors are elected annually. Upon the recommendation of our nominating and corporate governance committee, our board has re-nominated 12 of our 13 current board members to serve another term as director. Mr. Netherland, who has served on our board since 2008, notified the board that he did not wish to stand for re-election, although he will continue to serve as a director until the 2013 annual meeting.

Each director elected at the 2013 annual meeting will serve a one-year term beginning at the annual meeting and ending when his or her successor, if any, is elected or appointed. Assuming stockholders elect all of these director nominees at the annual meeting, our board, following the annual meeting, will have 12 directors.

We intend to vote the proxies received in response to this solicitation “FOR” the election of each of the nominees. If any nominee is no longer a candidate at the time of the annual meeting, we intend to vote the proxies “FOR” the election of the other nominees and proxies may be voted for any substitute nominee of our board. Our board has no information or reason to believe that any nominee will not be a candidate at the time of the annual meeting or, if elected, will be unable or unwilling to serve as a director. In no event will the proxies be voted for more than 12 nominees.

Majority Voting Policy.    Our board has adopted a majority voting policy as a part of its Corporate Governance Policy. Under this policy, any director who stands for re-election in an uncontested election and who receives a greater number of “WITHHELD” votes than “FOR” votes must tender his or her resignation following certification of the stockholder vote. Our board’s nominating and corporate governance committee is required to promptly consider and recommend to our board whether to accept the tendered resignation. Our board is required to act on the committee’s recommendation within 90 days following certification of the stockholder vote. We would then promptly and publicly disclose the board’s decision-making process and final decision in a current report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC. A copy of our Corporate Governance Policy, which includes our majority voting policy, may be obtained as described under “Corporate Governance—Availability of Corporate Governance Materials.”

Our board of directors recommends that you vote “FOR” each of the following 12 nominees: M. Jay Allison, James C. Day, Richard T. du Moulin, Morris E. Foster, J. Wayne Leonard, Jon C. Madonna, Richard A. Pattarozzi, Jeffrey M. Platt, Nicholas J. Sutton, Cindy B. Taylor, Dean E. Taylor, and Jack E. Thompson.

A biography of each director nominee is set forth below. Each director nominee’s biography contains information regarding that person’s service as a director, business experience, other directorships held currently or at any time during the last five years, and the nominee’s experiences, qualifications, attributes, or skills that led the committee and our board to determine that he or she should serve as a director for our company.

8

Table of Contents

9

Table of Contents

10

Table of Contents

11

Table of Contents

12

Table of Contents

13

Table of Contents

14

Table of Contents

15

Table of Contents

16

Table of Contents

17

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE “FOR” EACH OF THE TWELVE NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR LISTED ABOVE.

Director Nominating Process and Considerations.    The nominating and corporate governance committee is responsible for reviewing and evaluating with our board of directors the appropriate skills, experience, and background desired of board members in the context of our business and the then-current composition of our board. Under our Corporate Governance Policy and the rules of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), a majority of our directors must be independent. Our board has determined that, with the exception of Mr. Taylor, who served as our chief executive officer until May 31, 2012, and Mr. Platt, our current chief executive officer, each of our director-nominees meets the NYSE’s definition of “independence” (discussed in greater detail below under “Board of Directors—Director Independence”).

In considering the composition of our board of directors as a whole, the committee and the board evaluate the skills and experiences of each candidate to ensure that those specific talents, skills, and other characteristics needed to maintain our board’s effectiveness are possessed by an appropriate combination of directors. The committee seeks a diverse group of prospective candidates for board service who possess the requisite characteristics, skills, and experience to make a significant contribution. Our overarching goal is that the unique skills and experiences of each individual director complement and enhance the overall capabilities of the board.

The committee and our board have not adopted specific criteria for selecting director nominees, preferring to maintain the flexibility to evaluate the board’s needs at any given point in time in light of our company’s business model, strategic plan, and the skillset of the then-current members of the board. However, as evidenced by the biographies of our director nominees that appear above, we believe it is important that our board have individual directors who possess skills in such broad areas as:

Each candidate is evaluated to ensure that he or she possesses personal and professional character and integrity, and each must demonstrate exceptional ability and judgment in his or her respective endeavors. Candidates must possess sufficient time and availability to effectively carry out their duties and responsibilities as a Tidewater director. The committee may employ professional search firms (for which it would pay a fee) to assist it in identifying potential nominees for board service with the right mix of skills and disciplines.

This year, the committee reviewed the qualifications of 12 of our 13 current directors (Mr. Netherland had previously informed the board that he did not wish to stand for re-election). As in past years, the committee also reviewed the contributions each of these 12 current directors has made to our board and the company during his or her respective tenure as a director. The committee unanimously recommended each of the 12 directors under consideration for an additional one-year term. Subsequently, our board unanimously approved this slate of 12 director nominees to be submitted for election by our stockholders at the annual meeting.

18

Table of Contents

Consideration of Candidates Recommended by Stockholders.    Our bylaws provide that a stockholder of our company entitled to vote for the election of directors may nominate candidates for election to our board at our annual meeting of stockholders by complying with the required notice procedures, as described in greater detail below. The nominating and corporate governance committee’s policy is to consider director candidates recommended by stockholders on the same basis and in the same manner as it considers all director candidates.

No director candidates were recommended by stockholders in time for consideration at the 2013 annual meeting. To be timely for our 2014 annual meeting, a stockholder’s notice must be given in writing and delivered or mailed to the company’s Secretary and received at our principal executive offices no earlier than April 23, 2014 and no later than May 18, 2014. However, if the 2014 annual meeting is set for a date more than 30 days before or after August 1, 2014, a stockholder’s notice, in order to be timely, must be received by the close of business on the later of 90 days prior to the date of the annual meeting or the tenth day following the day on which the meeting date was publicly announced.

Stockholder recommendations of nominees are required to be accompanied by, among other things, specific information as to the nominees and as to the stockholder making the nomination or proposal. We may require any proposed nominee to furnish such information as may reasonably be required to determine his or her eligibility to serve as a director of our company. A description of these requirements is set forth in the company’s bylaws, which may be obtained as described under “Corporate Governance—Availability of Corporate Governance Materials.”

19

Table of Contents

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Our board of directors has adopted corporate governance practices designed to aid in the board and management in the fulfillment of their respective duties and responsibilities to our stockholders.

Corporate Governance Policy.    Our board has adopted a Corporate Governance Policy, which, together with our certificate of incorporation, bylaws, and board committee charters, form the framework for the governance of our company. The nominating and corporate governance committee is charged with reviewing the Corporate Governance Policy annually to assess the continued appropriateness of the guidelines in light of any new regulatory requirements and evolving corporate governance practices. After this review, the committee recommends any proposed changes to the full board for approval.

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.    Our board has also adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics sets forth principles of ethical and legal conduct to be followed by our directors, officers, and employees. The Code requires any employee who reasonably believes or suspects that any director or employee has violated the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics to report such activities to his or her supervisor or to our Chief Compliance Officer, either directly or anonymously. We do not tolerate retaliation of any kind against any person who, in good faith, reports any known or suspected improper activities pursuant to the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.

Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics also references disclosure controls and procedures required to be followed by all officers and employees involved with the preparation of the company’s SEC filings. These disclosure controls and procedures are designed to enhance the accuracy and completeness of the company’s SEC filings and, among other things, to ensure continued compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Communicating with Directors.    Stockholders and other interested parties may communicate directly with our board, the non-management directors, or any individual director by writing to any one of them in care of our Corporate Secretary at 601 Poydras Street, Suite 1500, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130. Our company or the director contacted will forward the communication to the appropriate director. For more information regarding how to contact the members of our board, please visit our web site at http://www.tdw.com/about/corporate-governance/communicating-concerns-to-the-board-of-directors/.

Complaint Procedures for Accounting, Auditing and Financial Related Matters.    The audit committee has established procedures for receiving, reviewing, and responding to complaints from any source regarding accounting, internal accounting controls, and auditing matters. The audit committee has also established procedures for the confidential and anonymous submission by employees of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters. Interested parties may communicate such complaints by following the procedures described under the heading “Communicating with Directors” above. Employees may report such complaints by following the procedures outlined in the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and through other procedures communicated and available to them. We do not tolerate retaliation of any kind against any person who, in good faith, submits a complaint or concern under these procedures.

Availability of Corporate Governance Materials.    You may access our certificate of incorporation, our bylaws, our Corporate Governance Policy, our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and all committee charters under “Corporate Governance” in the “About Tidewater” section of our website at http://www.tdw.com. You also may request printed copies, which will be mailed to you without charge, by writing to us in care of our Corporate Secretary, 601 Poydras Street, Suite 1500, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130.

20

Table of Contents

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

As of the date of this proxy statement, our board consists of 13 members. Assuming all director nominees are elected, our board will have 12 members following the annual meeting.

Board Meetings and Attendance.    During fiscal year 2013, our board held six meetings. Each director attended at least 75% of the meetings of the board and of the committees on which he or she served. Our board does not have a policy requiring director attendance at annual meetings; however, our board’s practice is to schedule a meeting on the same day as the annual meeting to facilitate director attendance at the annual meeting. Twelve of our 13 board members attended the 2012 annual meeting.

Director Independence.    Our board has affirmatively determined that 11 of our 13 current directors—Messrs. Allison, Day, du Moulin, Foster, Leonard, Madonna, Netherland, Pattarozzi, Sutton, and Thompson, and Ms. Taylor—are independent. The standards relied upon by the board in affirmatively determining whether a director is independent are comprised of the objective standards set forth in the corporate governance listing standards of the NYSE. In making this determination, our board evaluated responses to a questionnaire completed annually by each director regarding relationships and possible conflicts of interest between each director, the company, and management. In its review of director independence, our board also considered any commercial, industrial, banking, consulting, legal, accounting, charitable, and familial relationships any director may have with the company or management.

Board Leadership Structure.    Our board’s policy is to determine from time to time whether it is in the best interests of our company and our stockholders for the roles of chairman and chief executive officer to be separate or combined. We believe that our board should have the flexibility to make these determinations in a way that will best provide appropriate leadership for our company.

Until Mr. Taylor’s retirement on May 31, 2012, the roles of chairman and chief executive officer were combined. Under Mr. Taylor’s Non-Executive Chairman Agreement (described under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis – Retirement and Non-Executive Chairman Agreement with Mr. Taylor”), which will expire in accordance with its terms on December 31, 2013, Mr. Taylor continues to serve as our non-executive chairman. Mr. Platt, formerly our chief operating officer, now serves as chief executive officer and as a member of our Board of Directors. Our board believes that this leadership structure is appropriate and best serves the interests of our company and our stockholders by facilitating an effective senior management transition. Because Mr. Taylor is not independent under NYSE listing standards, the board has elected to continue to use a lead independent director.

Selection and Role of Lead Independent Director.    Under our Corporate Governance Policy, if the chairman of the board is not independent, the board elects a lead independent director at the meeting at which the chairman is elected. Because our current chairman, Mr. Taylor, is not independent under NYSE listing standards, we continue to use a lead independent director. The nominating and corporate governance committee recommends a candidate for election as lead independent director, and our independent directors, after taking the committee’s recommendation into consideration, elect an independent director to fill that role. Mr. Pattarozzi has served as our board’s lead independent director since 2008.

The lead independent director’s responsibilities include:

21

Table of Contents

Executive Sessions of Independent Board Members.    The independent members of the board of directors meet in regularly-scheduled executive sessions presided over by our lead independent director. Our Corporate Governance Policy requires at least three such executive meetings per year. At the conclusion of each board meeting, the non-management members have an opportunity to meet in executive session. The non-management and independent directors may schedule additional executive sessions throughout the year. During fiscal 2013, the non-management members of our board (all of our directors except Mr. Taylor and Mr. Platt) met five times in executive session.

Annual Board Self-Assessments.    To assist in its review as to whether the board and its committees are functioning effectively, our board has instituted annual self-assessments of the board and each of its committees. The nominating and corporate governance committee oversees this evaluation process. In fiscal 2013, our board and each of its committees completed self-evaluations and reviewed and discussed the results, making changes as deemed necessary to improve director communications and the overall effectiveness of board and committee meetings.

Role of the Board in Risk Oversight.    While our board as a whole has responsibility for risk oversight, each of our board committees oversees and evaluates risks associated with its respective areas of responsibility, as summarized below under “Composition and Role of Board Committees.” Our board and its committees focus annually on identifying, evaluating, and managing the spectrum of key risks faced by our company. The particular areas of focus include strategic, operational, financial and reporting, compensation, regulatory and compliance, international, and other risks.

22

Table of Contents

COMPOSITION AND ROLE OF BOARD COMMITTEES

Our board currently has four standing committees: audit, compensation, nominating and corporate governance, and finance and investment. Each of these four committees is comprised entirely of independent directors with the exception of the finance and investment committee on which Dean E. Taylor, our former president and chief executive officer, serves. In addition, each committee is governed by a written charter that is reviewed annually and approved by the full board. A copy of each committee charter may be obtained online or by mail as described in “Corporate Governance—Availability of Corporate Governance Materials.”

The current members of each board committee are identified in the following table, which also indicates the number of meetings each committee held in fiscal 2013:

Audit Committee.    Our board’s audit committee is a separately-designated, standing committee established in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Its members are listed in the above chart. The board has determined that three of the five committee members—Messrs. Madonna and Leonard and Ms. Taylor—qualify as an “audit committee financial expert,” as defined by SEC rules.

The main function of our audit committee is to oversee our accounting and financing reporting processes, internal systems of control, independent auditor relationship, and the audits of our financial statements. The audit committee’s key responsibilities are:

The audit committee is also responsible for any audit reports the SEC requires us to include in our proxy statements. In this proxy statement, the requisite report may be found under the heading, “Audit Committee Report.”

23

Table of Contents

Compensation Committee.    The role of the compensation committee is to assist our board of directors in discharging its responsibilities relating to:

The committee reports to the board of directors on all compensation matters regarding our executive officers and management. The compensation committee is also responsible for reviewing and discussing with management the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” portion of our proxy statement and, based on such review and discussion, recommending to the board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in our proxy statement and issuing a Compensation Committee Report to that effect to be included in the proxy statement.

The “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this proxy statement provides a discussion of the process the committee uses in determining executive compensation. Included in the subsection entitled “The Process of Setting Compensation” is a description of the scope of the committee’s authority, the role played by our chief executive officer in recommending compensation for the other named executives, and the committee’s engagement of compensation consultants.

Risk Review of Employee Compensation.    Consistent with SEC disclosure requirements, the compensation committee performs an annual risk assessment of our company’s compensation programs. Management has identified the elements of our compensation program that could incentivize risk and has reported to the compensation committee its assessment of those risks and mitigating factors particular to each risk. The compensation committee has concluded that our compensation policies and practices do not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our company. Some of the findings the committee considered in reaching this conclusion include:

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.    The purpose of the nominating and corporate governance committee is to:

24

Table of Contents

Additional information regarding the committee’s role in nominating directors and the ability of stockholders to recommend candidates for director may be found under “Election of Directors—Director Nominating Process and Considerations” and “—Consideration of Candidates Recommended by Stockholders,” respectively.

The nominating and corporate governance committee is also responsible for annually reviewing and setting director compensation and benefits and for reviewing director education programs. In early fiscal 2013, the nominating and corporate governance committee reviewed our company’s director compensation program in comparison to the director compensation provided by similarly-sized public companies, and made certain changes as noted under “Director Compensation—Director Fees.”

Finance and Investment Committee.    The purpose of the finance and investment committee is to:

The finance committee also has responsibility for appointing and monitoring independent investment managers and for overseeing the development of projected operating budgets and capital expenditures and making recommendations as appropriate to our board on an annual and quarterly basis.

25

Table of Contents

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

FISCAL YEAR 2013 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION TABLE

This table reflects all compensation paid to or accrued by each of our non-management directors during fiscal 2013. The compensation of Mr. Taylor, who served as our president and chief executive officer through May 31, 2012, and Mr. Platt, our current president and chief executive officer, is disclosed in the Summary Compensation Table in the section titled “Executive Compensation.” A description of the elements of our director compensation program follows this table.

26

Table of Contents

We use a combination of cash and equity-based compensation to provide competitive pay opportunities for our non-management directors and to enable them to meet their stock ownership guidelines. Compensation for the non-management directors for fiscal 2013 consisted of an annual cash retainer; an additional annual cash retainer for each of the chairman, the lead director, and the chair of each board committee; an annual grant of deferred stock units; and other benefits. Based on a competitive review of director pay levels and design practices among energy services companies provided by Meridian, we made the following revisions to the program for fiscal 2013: (i) an increase in the annual cash retainer from $40,000 to $60,000, (ii) the elimination of board meeting fees, and (iii) an increase in the annual deferred stock unit award from $100,000 to $115,000. Officers of the company who also serve as directors do not receive compensation for simultaneous service as a director.

Director Fees.    For fiscal year 2013, the cash and equity-based compensation payable to the non-management directors was as follows:

Compensation Payable to Mr. Taylor as Non-Executive Chairman.    Having retired on May 31, 2012 from the positions of president and chief executive officer, Mr. Taylor now serves as our non-executive chairman of the board. Under the terms of his Retirement and Non-Executive Chairman agreement (discussed in greater detail under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis – Retirement and Non-Executive Chairman Agreement with Mr. Taylor”), Mr. Taylor receives compensation as a non-management director under our director compensation program beginning June 1, 2012. In addition, his agreement provides that he will receive an annual fee of $150,000 for service as our non-executive chairman through December 31, 2013, pro-rated for partial year service.

Annual Grant of Deferred Stock Units.    Under the Directors Deferred Stock Units Plan, each non-management director receives a grant of deferred stock units on March 31 of each year for service during the fiscal year ending on that date. The number of units each director receives is determined by dividing $115,000 by the fair market value of a share of our common stock on the date of grant, rounded up to the next whole share. Dividend equivalents are credited to each director’s account in the form of additional deferred stock units, priced at the fair market value of our common stock on the date the dividend is declared. A person who becomes a director or leaves the board during the fiscal year receives a pro rata grant.

Each director receives cash distributions from the Directors Deferred Stock Units Plan according to the plan’s terms and the director’s election. If the director has not made an election with respect to one or more of his or her deferred stock unit grants, those units are paid out in cash when he or she ceases to serve on our board. The cash amount paid to the director is equal to the number of stock units credited to the director’s account in the Directors Deferred Stock Units Plan, multiplied by the fair market value of a share of our common stock valued as of the date of the event that triggers payout. In the event of a change of control of our company, the balance of each non-management director’s account will be paid to him or her in a lump sum, including a pro rata number of units for the partial year of service beginning at the end of the prior fiscal year through the date of the change of control.

27

Table of Contents

Stock Ownership Guidelines.    Our directors are subject to stock ownership guidelines requiring each director to own and hold company stock worth five times his or her annual cash retainer no later than five years after his or her appointment. Under the guidelines, a director’s annual grants of deferred stock units count as shares of company stock. At the end of fiscal 2013, each of our directors was in compliance with the guidelines except Mr. Foster, who has until January 1, 2016 to comply with the guidelines. These guidelines are described in greater detail under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Other Compensation and Equity Ownership Policies – Stock Ownership Guidelines.”

Other Benefits.    We reimburse all directors for reasonable travel and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with attendance at meetings of the board of directors and its committees. In addition, directors are generally eligible to participate in the company’s Gift Matching Program on the same terms as employees. Under this program, the company matches a director’s contribution to an educational institution or foundation up to $5,000 per year. The company may make other charitable contributions on behalf of a director or the full board outside of the Gift Matching Program.

Retirement Plan.    In the past, we provided a Retirement Plan for the benefit of non-management directors who retired from our board on or after reaching age 65 or after completing five or more years of service on our board. We froze benefits under the Retirement Plan as of March 31, 2006 and terminated any further benefit accruals. We calculate payouts under the Retirement Plan assuming a retirement age of 75, which is currently the mandatory retirement age for directors under our Corporate Governance Guidelines.

Each of Messrs. Allison, Day, Foster, Netherland, Sutton, and Taylor and Ms. Taylor became non-management directors after March 31, 2006, and thus none of them is eligible to participate in the Retirement Plan. Each of Messrs. du Moulin, Leonard, Pattarozzi, and Thompson became directors after May 31, 2001 but before March 31, 2006, and therefore upon retirement each will be eligible to receive an annual benefit of $30,000 for no more than five years. Mr. Madonna, who was a member of our board on May 31, 2001, will receive an annual benefit of $30,000 for a term equal to the number of years he served as a non-management director through March 31, 2006, upon his retirement from our board. If a director dies prior to payment of his benefit, a death benefit is payable to his beneficiaries equal to the then-present value of the unpaid benefit. The Retirement Plan provides for the protection of benefits in the event of a change of control of our company and allows a director to elect to be paid out in a lump sum in such event.

The accrued benefits of the board members under the Retirement Plan and their years of credited service are as follows:

28

Table of Contents

ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (“SAY-ON-PAY VOTE”)

(PROPOSAL 2)

We are required to provide our stockholders with the opportunity to vote to approve, on a non-binding, advisory basis, the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this proxy statement in accordance with the rules of the SEC. This vote (commonly referred to as a “say-on-pay” vote) is advisory, which means that the vote on executive compensation is not binding on the company, our board of directors, or the compensation committee of the board of directors. However, our board and our compensation committee value the opinion of our stockholders and will consider the outcome of the vote when evaluating our executive compensation program. The vote on this resolution is not intended to address any specific element of compensation, but rather relates to the overall compensation of our named executive officers and our compensation philosophy and practices, as described in this proxy statement.

We are asking our stockholders to vote on the following resolution:

RESOLVED, that the compensation paid to the named executive officers as disclosed in the proxy statement for the company’s 2013 annual meeting of stockholders pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K of the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission is hereby APPROVED.

We understand that executive compensation is an important matter for our stockholders. Our core executive compensation philosophy and practice continue to be based on pay for performance, and we believe that our compensation program is strongly aligned with the long-term interests of our stockholders. In considering how to vote on this proposal, we encourage you to review all of the relevant information in this proxy statement—our Compensation Discussion and Analysis (including its executive summary), the compensation tables, and the rest of the narrative disclosures regarding our executive compensation program.

While this say-on-pay vote is not binding, our compensation committee and board take the views of our stockholders seriously and will review the voting results and will consider the outcome of the vote when making future compensation decisions for our named executives. We invite stockholders who wish to communicate with our board on executive compensation or any other matters to contact us as provided under “Board of Directors—Communicating with Directors.”

Approval of this resolution requires the affirmative vote of the holders of at least a majority of the voting power present or represented by proxy at the annual meeting. See “Questions and Answers about the Annual Meeting and Voting.”

Our board unanimously recommends that stock holders vote “FOR” approval of this resolution to approve the compensation of our named executives as disclosed in this proxy statement.

29

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

This section of the proxy statement describes and analyzes our executive compensation philosophy and program in the context of the compensation paid during the last fiscal year to the two individuals who served as our chief executive officer during the year, our chief financial officer, and our three other most highly-compensated executives. We refer to these executives as our “named executives” or “NEOs.” For fiscal 2013, our named executives were:

In this CD&A, we first provide an Executive Summary of our actions and highlights from the fiscal year. We next explain the Compensation Philosophy and Objectives that guide our compensation committee’s executive compensation decisions. We then describe the committee’s Process of Setting Compensation, including the supporting role played by the chief executive officer. Finally, we discuss in detail each of the Compensation Components, including, for each component, a design overview as well as the actual results yielded for each named executive in fiscal 2013. We suggest that you read this section of the proxy statement in conjunction with the advisory say-on-pay vote (Proposal 2), as this section contains information you may find relevant to your voting decision.

Executive Summary

Our company operates a diversified fleet of marine service vessels and provides other marine support services to the global offshore energy industry. With operations in most of the world’s significant offshore crude oil and natural gas exploration and production regions, we have one of the broadest global operating footprints in the offshore energy industry. We provide services in support of all phases of offshore exploration, field development, and production, including towing of, and anchor handling for, mobile offshore drilling units; transporting supplies and personnel necessary to sustain drilling, workover, and production activities; offshore construction and seismic support; and a variety of specialized services such as pipe and cable laying. Our international operations are the primary driver of our revenue and earnings, as a substantial portion of our revenues come from operations outside of the United States territorial waters. For more information about our business, please see “Business” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2013.

Key Compensation Actions During Fiscal 2013.     Our fiscal 2013 financial performance and the prevailing business environment provided the basis for some of the following results and key committee decisions, which are discussed more fully elsewhere in this CD&A.

30

Table of Contents

Compensation Best Practices.    Our compensation committee strives to align executive compensation with stockholder interests and incorporate strong governance standards in our executive compensation program, such as the following:

31

Table of Contents

Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

As a company with a global reach in an operationally-demanding, volatile, highly cyclical, and capital-intensive business, we design our executive compensation program to achieve the following objectives:

Since our compensation programs are designed to reward achievement of corporate objectives, we change our programs from time to time as our objectives change. The specific principles followed and decisions made in establishing the compensation of the named executives for fiscal 2013 are discussed in more detail below.

Process of Setting Compensation

Our board of directors has delegated to the compensation committee the primary responsibility for overseeing our executive compensation program. The compensation committee annually reviews and sets the compensation for our executive officers, reporting to the full board on all compensation matters regarding our executives and other key management employees. For more information about the compensation committee’s responsibilities, see “Composition and Role of Committees—Compensation Committee.”

Role of the Chief Executive Officer.    Our chief executive officer makes recommendations to the compensation committee with respect to salary, bonus, and long-term incentive awards for all executive officers other than himself. He develops those recommendations based on the competitive market information generated by the committee’s compensation consultant, the company’s compensation strategy, his assessment of individual performance, and the experience level of the particular executive. The committee discusses those recommendations with the chief executive officer and either approves or modifies the recommendations in its discretion.

Evaluating the Chief Executive Officer’s Compensation.    Prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, the chief executive officer presents the committee with a proposed list of objectives against which to measure his performance during the year. The committee considers the proposed objectives, reviews them with the chief executive officer, and, meeting in executive session, approves a final list of performance objectives for the chief executive officer for the year, including any modifications it deems necessary. In evaluating the chief executive officer’s compensation, the committee reviews the competitive market information provided by its compensation consultant and bases its decisions regarding his compensation on our overall compensation strategy, the chief executive officer’s self-assessment, and the committee’s independent assessment of his performance, using the objectives that were established at the beginning of the year as one point of analysis. These deliberations are done in executive session so that the chief executive officer is not present when the committee makes its determinations regarding his compensation.

32

Table of Contents

Role of Compensation Consultant.    Our compensation committee has sole authority over the selection, use, and retention of any compensation consultant engaged to assist the committee in discharging its responsibilities. Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC (“Meridian”) has served as the committee’s primary consultant since 2010. The compensation committee’s primary consultant also surveys director compensation upon the request of the nominating and corporate governance committee, which is responsible for reviewing director compensation. Meridian provides no other services to, nor has any other relationship with, our company. As required by SEC rules, the committee has assessed Meridian’s independence and concluded that Meridian’s work did not raise any conflicts of interest.

In addition, from 2006 through 2011, the committee retained Stern Stewart & Co. to provide specific guidance on utilizing the measure of “economic value-added” or “EVA” as a component of our annual incentive plan. The committee has not formally engaged Stern Stewart since fiscal 2012, although the firm is available to assist on EVA matters as needed. The use of EVA^® and Stern Stewart’s role in its development are discussed in greater detail below in “Annual Cash Incentive Compensation.”

The committee endeavors to use the most current information available when making compensation decisions, reviewing an annual compensation report prepared by Meridian. However, because base salaries and bonus opportunities are determined in advance of a fiscal year, and equity awards are typically made just prior to the close of the fiscal year, the committee reviews two compensation analyses in setting compensation for a given fiscal year. The committee reviewed a March 2012 report prior to finalizing fiscal 2013 base salaries and bonus opportunities, but referenced an updated report from Meridian in setting the March 2013 equity awards. For each report, the committee asked Meridian to:

In consultation with Meridian, the committee reviews and approves our peer group annually, paying particular attention to mergers, acquisitions, and bankruptcies, each of which may make a peer company more or less aligned to our business. Over the past year, two peer companies, Pride International and Global Industries, were removed from our peer group as each was acquired (and thus no longer a standalone entity suitable for compensation comparisons). The committee also reviewed detailed performance data on the peer group. Meridian’s compensation analyses compared our executive compensation to two different groups: the most recent data for the 24 companies in our peer group as well as the Towers Watson Oilfield Service Compensation Survey. These companies are identified in Appendix A.

Policy and Analysis.    We review our actual and target total direct compensation (base salary, target annual cash incentive compensation, and annual long-term equity incentive grant values) in conjunction with the consultant’s compensation analyses in order to determine where target total direct compensation for our executive officers is likely to fall. Our general goal is for our target total direct compensation to within a competitive range of the median (50^th percentile) of the companies included in the competitive compensation analyses.

We do not have a specific policy for the allocation of compensation between short-term and long-term compensation or cash and equity compensation. However, we strongly emphasize the at-risk and performance-based elements of compensation. For example, approximately 87% of Mr. Platt’s target total direct compensation for fiscal 2013 (base salary plus target annual incentive plus March 2013 target long-term equity incentive, as valued by the committee at grant and not based on the accounting valuation) was either performance-based or at risk, meaning that it either had to be earned on the basis of performance (in the case of his annual incentive) or its actual value to him will be contingent upon our future performance (in the case of his long-term equity incentive, a portion of which will only vest after three years if a cumulative three-year performance goal is met).

33

Table of Contents

Maintaining median salary levels also allows us to appropriately manage our fixed cash obligations in our cyclical industry. By then using a higher target bonus opportunity than some of our peer companies, we provide opportunities for our executives to achieve total cash compensation in successful years that exceeds the median of cash compensation paid by our peers. We link annual cash incentive compensation to the company’s achievement of annual performance goals, while we link our long-term incentive compensation to longer-term performance goals and to the value of our common stock.

Periodically, the committee considers a wealth accumulation analysis prepared by Meridian. The purpose of this analysis is to allow the committee to understand the total wealth potential of past and future compensation and benefits paid to our executives. In addition, this type of tool aids the committee’s understanding of how current compensation decisions can have a long-term, potentially compounding impact on future wealth accumulation. The committee most recently considered this analysis in fiscal 2011.

Consideration of Prior Say-on-Pay Vote Results.    We held our first non-binding stockholder advisory vote on executive compensation (“say-on-pay”) at our 2011 annual meeting. Our board, considering the opinion of stockholders as expressed in the 2011 say-on-pay frequency vote and on the recommendation of our compensation committee, has opted to hold these say-on-pay votes annually. Our next advisory vote on the frequency of future say-on-pay votes will be held no later than our 2017 annual meeting of stockholders.

At our 2011 and 2012 annual meetings, our stockholders overwhelmingly approved our executive compensation, with more than 96% and 97% of voting stockholders, respectively, casting their vote in favor of the say-on-pay resolution. Because the committee made most of the significant fiscal 2013 compensation decisions prior to our 2012 say-on-pay vote, the committee primarily considered the results of the 2011 say-on-pay vote along with other factors when making executive compensation decisions for fiscal 2013. In making executive compensation decisions for fiscal 2013, the committee’s main considerations included our stockholders’ strong support for our executive compensation program, the committee’s satisfaction with the fiscal 2012 pay mix and levels, and information provided by Meridian. As a result, the committee decided to generally maintain similar fiscal 2012 pay mix and levels for fiscal 2013, except for adjustments to the pay levels of Messrs. Platt and Gorski in recognition of their promotions and a few changes to the structure of our annual incentive program (as discussed under “Compensation Components”—“Annual Cash Incentive Compensation”).

Compensation Components

The three core components of our executive compensation program are: base salary, an annual cash incentive, and long-term equity incentives. In addition, we offer our executives retirement benefits, change of control protections, and certain perquisites. Each of these components is discussed in detail below.

Base Salary.    We review and determine salary levels for named executives prior to the beginning of each fiscal year. Our annual base salary determinations are based on a variety of factors, including individual performance, general market salary levels, our company’s overall financial condition, and industry conditions. As mentioned previously, however, we take a conservative approach to setting base salaries, consistent with our philosophy of placing greater emphasis on performance-driven compensation components.

At the beginning of fiscal 2013, each of our named executives received a modest salary increase of approximately 3% with the exception of Mr. Taylor, who received no salary increase due to his retirement from all executive positions early in the fiscal year. In addition to these adjustments, effective with his promotion to president and chief executive officer on June 1, 2012, Mr. Platt’s salary was increased from $463,500 to $575,000. Mr. Gorski, who was promoted to replace Mr. Platt as executive vice president and chief operating officer, also received an increase in base salary in consideration of his new responsibilities, from $285,500 to $350,000, effective June 1, 2012.

34

Table of Contents

Annual Cash Incentive Compensation.    We pay annual cash incentives for the purpose of rewarding both company and individual performance during the year. Company performance is measured using two metrics—a financial metric and a safety metric—under our Executive Officer Company Performance Annual Incentive Plan. The awards under this plan are intended to qualify as “performance-based” compensation under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code in order to be fully tax deductible by our company. In order to reward our executives for individual performance, we have established a separate Individual Performance Executive Officer Annual Incentive Plan under which each of our named executives may earn a separate annual award based on the committee’s evaluation of his individual performance during the fiscal year.

General Structure of the Program

Financial Metric—EVA.    In fiscal 2007, the compensation committee began working with Stern Stewart to institute an annual incentive program that focused on the economic value added (EVA) to our company during the fiscal year. EVA^® is a framework developed by Stern Stewart for setting goals and measuring performance that rewards participants for both short-term and long-term results realized by the company. When we began using EVA in fiscal 2007, it was our goal to keep the EVA-based annual incentive program in place for three years in order to give us an adequate opportunity to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of the new system. At the end of fiscal 2009, we reviewed the long-term effectiveness of the EVA-based annual incentive program. As a result of that review, we decided to continue the program for another three-year period ending in fiscal year 2012.

Prior to fiscal 2013, the committee reevaluated our annual incentive program. The committee decided that, given the unpredictable economic climate of the past few years, it wanted to retain the flexibility to select performance metrics annually. In addition, recognizing that the purpose of our annual incentive program is to incentivize our executives over the shorter term, the committee believes that longer-term incentives are more appropriately delivered through our equity incentive program, in which one-third of the equity incentives currently vest based on a three-year performance metric.

For fiscal 2013, the committee restructured the EVA component to function as a more traditional annual incentive program. Specifically, beginning in fiscal 2013, the committee has discontinued use of the bonus bank. The result of this change is that performance in one year will no longer affect payouts in subsequent years, which is a more typical design for annual incentive programs. Given the shift to a true annual program, the committee also reduced the maximum possible EVA award for each executive from 5.0 times target to 3.5 times target, which is consistent with competitive practices.

Safety Metric.    We include a safety performance component in our annual incentive program (25% of the target incentive opportunity) to reinforce our commitment to be an industry leader in safety. Experience has taught us that a safe work environment helps us to attract and retain a more experienced work force. Additionally, a safe work environment gives us an advantage when we compete for work from the most reputable and superior customers. Finally, a solid safety record helps us to minimize our insurance premiums and overall cost of doing business.

Individual Performance.    Our compensation committee also believes that it is important to recognize individual performance in our annual incentive program, and therefore includes an individual component representing 25% of the target incentive opportunity for each named executive.

Fiscal 2013 Target Awards.    Prior to each fiscal year, our compensation committee specifies target annual awards for each named executive. The target award is a percentage of base salary and the percentage is determined by the participant’s position and ability to directly influence our financial and safety performance, with reference to data supplied by the compensation consultant related to the market for similar positions. The following chart shows the target awards set for our named executives for fiscal 2013, as well as the percentage

35

Table of Contents

allocation to each component and the amount of payout each component would have yielded at target level of performance for each of the named executives:

The total percentage of salary that the named executive is eligible to receive increases or decreases based upon performance above or below the target for each of the performance goals. Once each component has been allocated a percentage of the total target award, it is evaluated independently of the other two components. At performance above or below target, a given component may pay more or less than the target amount. There is a maximum possible payout under each component as described under “Criteria for 2013.” In addition to the component caps, the maximum possible payout under the company performance portion for each participant (financial and safety components together) is $3 million. The committee has discretion to reduce, but not increase, amounts payable under the plan.

Criteria for 2013

Financial Criteria—EVA.    The EVA component is based upon our achievement of a pre-established performance goal relating to EVA improvement for the fiscal year. Payouts are scaled within a certain range. For fiscal 2013, as in prior years, we required a $5 million improvement in EVA in fiscal 2013 over EVA for the prior year in order for the EVA target to be achieved. We have used a targeted $5 million improvement in annual EVA consistently since fiscal 2007, even though EVA levels can fluctuate substantially from year to year because of the volatility in our business sector.

Failure to achieve the EVA target for fiscal 2013 would result in reduced incentive awards and no EVA bonus amount would be generated if the negative change in EVA from the prior year’s level was more than $45 million. For fiscal 2013, the maximum award that could be earned on the basis of EVA improvement would be 3.5 times target.

We calculate EVA by subtracting from our net after-tax operating profit an appropriate charge for the opportunity cost of all capital that we have invested over the measurement period. Thus, EVA measures the amount by which our earnings exceed or fall short of a rate of return that our stockholders could reasonably expect to obtain if they invested in other securities of comparable risk. Our intent has been that by emphasizing financial performance as a function of our invested capital, management would be incentivized to make prudent investments in assets capable of providing a strong return on capital.

36

Table of Contents

Our net operating profit after taxes (“NOPAT”) generally equals revenues, less operating expenses, depreciation expense, general and administrative expenses, other income and expenses, and taxes on operating profit. We subtract a capital charge from NOPAT to determine EVA. Our capital charge is determined by multiplying our average capital invested during the year by a weighted average cost of debt and equity. Prior to each fiscal year, we set the weighted average cost of capital for that year. For 2013, based on advice of Stern Stewart, we used a 8.7% weighted average cost of capital. Certain adjustments to NOPAT are made in determining EVA, including adjustments to eliminate the effects of accounting changes, extraordinary items, discontinued operations, and unusual or infrequently occurring items (less the amount of related income taxes).

Safety Criteria.    The safety performance component is based upon our achievement of a pre-established goal for the fiscal year, which is based upon our Total Recordable Incident Rate (“TRIR”) per 200,000 work hours. Like the other two components, payout based on safety performance is scaled within a certain range of results—for the safety component, the higher the TRIR, the smaller the payout. A TRIR above a certain threshold results in no payout.

A TRIR below a certain level will entitle a participant to a payment in an amount that is greater than the safety component’s 25% target award and which may be up to two times the 25% target award. As noted previously, the safety performance portion operates independently from the other components.

The TRIR goal for fiscal 2013 was 0.20, which represents significantly better performance than the industry average. A 5% targeted improvement in our average safety performance levels over the preceding two years (0.16 TRIR) would generate a payout of 150% of target, while a maximum 200% payout would be earned for TRIR at or below 0.12. No safety performance payout would be earned if the TRIR equaled or exceeded 0.24.

Individual Criteria.    As noted previously, prior to the beginning of a fiscal year, the compensation committee reviews a list of broad objectives proposed by the chief executive officer to be used to measure his individual performance during the fiscal year, revises that list as it deems necessary, and then communicates the final list of objectives to the chief executive officer. The chief executive officer advises each other named executive of the individual qualities and goals on which he will be evaluated for the year. For each named executive, these unweighted criteria and goals are discussed under “Calculation of 2013 Annual Incentive—Individual Performance.” The maximum individual performance payout may not exceed 2 times the executive’s target amount.

Calculation of 2013 Annual Incentives

For fiscal 2013, each named executive earned between 138% and 145% of his target annual incentive award. Fiscal 2013 was the first time in the last four years that an annual incentive was earned on the basis of EVA improvement. The safety component paid out at greater than target for all the named executives, as a result of the actual TRIR performance of 0.17 exceeding the targeted 0.20 TRIR, the fourth best safety performance in company history. Finally, the individual performance award for each named executive ranged between 95% and 98% of his target individual performance award (compared to a maximum possible award for named executive of 200% of his target).

37

Table of Contents

The calculation of each component’s payout is discussed below.

Financial Metric—EVA (50% of target incentive opportunity).    For fiscal 2013, the company’s EVA was a negative $96.3 million, as compared to fiscal 2012 EVA of a negative $131.1 million, resulting in a change in fiscal 2013 EVA of a positive $34.8 million. Historically, changes in EVA from year to year have been substantial. For example, fiscal 2007’s change in EVA was a positive $132.5 million, but fiscal 2008 and 2009’s changes were approximately $6.7 million and $42.1 million, respectively. With the depressed business environment and continuing effects of the global recession during fiscal 2010 and 2011, the change in EVA during those years were a negative $178.7 million and a negative $164.7 million, respectively, improving slightly in fiscal 2012 as the business environment improved, to a negative $25.1 million.

Fiscal 2013 EVA was calculated in accordance with the EVA program design that we established in consultation with Stern Stewart, as set forth in the following chart and more fully described below:

NOPAT for the year ended March 31, 2013 equals revenues (vessel revenues and other marine revenues):

The charge for capital employed equals average total capital employed of $3.0 billion multiplied by the weighted average cost of capital of 8.7%. Total capital employed at March 31, 2013 equals current assets plus the allowance for doubtful accounts adjusted by a decrease of $11.0 million for deferred vessel revenue, investments in and advances to unconsolidated companies, net properties and equipment as decreased by approximately $239.3 million, primarily for the effect of vessels under construction, goodwill as increased by $35.5 million for the effect of accumulated goodwill amortization and $22.1 million for the effect of goodwill impairment, other assets as decreased by $5.5 million, primarily for the effect of certain deferred charges; less current liabilities decreased by $33.2 million for certain taxes payable and certain deferred credits, deferred income taxes, accrued property and liability losses, and other liabilities and deferred credits. Average capital was further decreased by $222.0 million for the after-tax effect of cumulative gains on sales of assets, by $72.5 million for the cumulative after-tax effect of discontinued operations, and by $21.0 million for the after-tax effect of a tax litigation settlement during fiscal 2010. Average capital was further increased by $20.3 million for the after-tax effect of cumulative asset impairments, and by $22.0 million for the after-tax effect of the proposed settlements with the SEC, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Government of Nigeria related to an internal investigation recorded in fiscal 2010 and 2011. Cumulative adjustments give effect to such items beginning in fiscal 1996.

38

Table of Contents

Safety (25% of target incentive opportunity).    The TRIR for fiscal 2013 was 0.17, which exceeded the target level and generated a 137.5% of target payout for each of our named executives. The TRIR for fiscal 2013 was the fourth best in company history, and it was only the second time in our company’s history that we had a full fiscal year without a single lost-time accident.

Individual Performance (25% of target incentive opportunity).    For purposes of awarding the individual performance portion of the annual incentive award to the named executives, the compensation committee independently assessed the performance of the chief executive officer but relied on the judgment of our chief executive officer in assessing the performances of our other named executives. Each named executive received between 95% and 98% of his target individual performance award.

Mr. Platt’s award was based on his contribution to the solid operations and overall safety of our fleet, the continued success of our new vessel building and acquisition program, the value created through the continued disposition of our older fleet, the development of strategies to further capitalize on our core competencies, and his steady leadership in a year of management transition. Mr. Gorski’s management of a geographically widespread fleet, successful expansion into new markets, and our incorporation of increasingly sophisticated vessels into our fleet were key factors in his award. In the case of Mr. Fanning, his continued leadership in maintaining the company’s strong financial position while funding the substantial capital needs of our fleet expansion, his efforts to continue to upgrade the financial and accounting resources and capabilities of our company, and his experience in evaluating new growth opportunities were instrumental in his award. Mr. Lundstrom’s continued efforts to improve our company’s compliance profile, his effective management of the company’s internal and external resources, and the discharge of his general duties as the company’s general counsel led to his award. With regard to Mr. Bennett, his continued successful interface with the investment community during a transitional period for the company and other contributions to the company were considered in his award. Finally, Mr. Taylor’s award was based on his key role in steering a successful management transition.

Long-term Incentive Compensation.    We have historically granted long-term incentive compensation in the form of annual equity grants to our named executives, generally using a multiple of each executive’s base salary to determine the overall grant size. The multiple used for any particular executive reflected the nature and scope of the executive’s duties. However, beginning in fiscal 2012, we began to generally target our grant values to bring our target long-term incentive compensation more in line with the median of long-term incentive compensation provided by our peer group companies. As in prior years, the fiscal 2012 and 2013 awards to our named executives were a combination of time-based and performance-based RSUs, using the same approximate proportions (two-thirds time-based, one-third performance-based). As discussed in greater detail below, the performance metric applicable to our fiscal 2013 awards is a three-year relative total stockholder return, the same metric the committee used in fiscal 2012.

We believe that RSU awards provide our named executives with a significant equity ownership opportunity. Further, time-based full-value award such as restricted stock and RSUs are widely used among our competitors. In such a cyclical industry, the use of this type of award encourages executives to remain with our company even during periods of stock price volatility. The value of our RSU and restricted stock awards moves in tandem with our company’s stock price. These awards are subject to forfeiture and, as noted above, vest in accordance with certain performance and continued employment requirements.

Supplemental Grants to Messrs. Platt and Gorski (June 2012).    Although the committee typically makes annual equity awards in March of a given year, as noted previously, the company had a management transition in June 2012. In conjunction with Mr. Platt’s promotion, the committee approved an additional equity grant to him equivalent to $1 million in value (two-thirds time-based, one-third performance-based), resulting in an aggregate grant date value of approximately $2.7 million for the awards in March and June of 2012 combined (based on the closing price of a share of our common stock on the applicable date of grant). The value of Mr. Gorski’s additional equity grant was valued at approximately $525,000 (two-thirds time-based, one-third performance-

39

Table of Contents

based), resulting in an aggregate grant date value of approximately $1.2 million for the awards in March and June of 2012 combined (based on the closing price of a share of our common stock on the applicable date of grant). For each of Messrs. Platt and Gorski, his time-based RSUs will vest based on continued service, one-third per year on the first three anniversaries of the date of grant while his performance-based restricted stock units will vest following fiscal year 2015, subject to the same terms and conditions as the performance-based RSUs that the executive received in March 2012 (a three-year relative TSR measure). Although these supplemental awards were granted in fiscal 2013, the committee considers these awards part of the officer’s fiscal 2012 award.

Annual Equity Grants (March 2013).    For fiscal 2013, as in previous years, two-thirds of each named executive’s annual equity grant was time-based. These time-based RSUs will vest based on continued employment in three equal tranches over the next three years. The remaining one-third of each named executive’s grant will vest based on the company’s total stockholder return over a three-year period as measured against the total stockholder return of our peer group companies over the same period. The number of RSUs granted to each named executive represents the target award; the performance-based RSUs may vest and pay out between 0-200% of target depending upon the company’s relative TSR performance, as follows:

The committee elected to vest the performance-based RSUs only after completion of a full three-year period rather than annually in order to emphasize long-term, multi-year performance and value creation. If performance falls between two different performance levels, the percentage of performance-based RSUs vesting will be interpolated. If minimum performance is not achieved, all performance-based RSUs will be forfeited, as was the case with the performance-based restricted stock granted in 2008 and in 2009. In the event that the maximum performance level is achieved and the continued service requirements are met, then 50% of the ultimate payout to the named executives as a result of the fiscal 2013 RSU awards will be a result of company performance and 50% will be a result of continued service.

Dividend Equivalents on RSUs.    While we pay dividend equivalents currently on the time-based RSUs, any dividend equivalents on the performance-based RSUs will accrue and be paid or forfeited in tandem with the associated RSUs, based on our relative TSR performance.

Forfeitures of Restricted Stock.    Adherence to a pay-for-performance philosophy means that an executive’s compensation will rise and fall with corporate performance. As demonstrated in the following chart, during and after fiscal 2013, each of our named executives (except Mr. Gorski, who joined the company in 2012) forfeited a large amount of performance-based restricted stock from two separate annual grants. Performance-based share granted in March 2008 were forfeited on May 21, 2012 as the cumulative EVA target of an additional $5 million per year over the fiscal year 2008 level was not met for the last three years of the performance period (fiscal years 2009 through 2012). In addition, performance-based shares granted in March 2009 were forfeited on May 21, 2013. Vesting of the March 2009 awards was contingent upon percentage improvements in return on capital employed (“ROCE”), as measured by the simple average of the previous four fiscal years (“SAROCE”).

40

Table of Contents

Because SAROCE for the four-year period (fiscal years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013) was 5.96%, which fell below the threshold of 10%, all shares were forfeited.

Retirement Benefits.    Our named executives participate in employee benefit plans generally available to all employees. These broad-based plans include a Pension Plan (now frozen and closed to new participants), a qualified defined contribution Retirement Plan, and our 401(k) Plan. We have frozen the benefits under our Pension Plan for all participants effective December 31, 2010, and there will be no future benefit accruals under that plan. Future qualified retirement benefits will be provided through our Retirement Plan and our 401(k) Plan, which were merged in February 2013.

In addition to these broad-based programs, we provide our executives with a non-qualified deferred compensation plan, the Supplemental Savings Plan, which acts as a supplement to our 401(k) Plan, and a SERP that operates as a supplement to our Pension and Retirement Plans. Both the Supplemental Savings Plan and the SERP are designed to provide retirement benefits to our officers that they are precluded from receiving under the underlying qualified plans due to the compensation and benefit limits in the Internal Revenue Code. Effective March 1, 2010, the Committee closed the SERP to new participants. These plans are described in more detail in “Executive Compensation—2013 Pension Benefits” and “Executive Compensation—2013 Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation.”

Change of Control Agreements.    We have entered into change of control agreements with our executives, including each of our named executives. We continue to offer our executives change of control benefits for several reasons. Change of control protections for our named executives and other key personnel are an important part of good corporate governance, as they alleviate individual concerns about the possible involuntary loss of employment and ensure that the interests of our named executives will be materially consistent with the interests of our stockholders when considering corporate transactions. In addition, we believe that these change of control protections preserve morale and productivity and encourage retention in the face of the potential disruptive impact of an actual or potential change of control of our company. Information regarding the current change of control agreements, including the estimated amounts payable to each named executive, is set forth under the heading “Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control—Change in Control.” Mr. Taylor’s change of control agreement terminated upon his retirement on May 31, 2012.

Other Benefits.    We also provide certain limited perquisites to our named executives.

41

Table of Contents

Use of Corporate Airplane.    At the time of the acquisition of the corporate airplane, our board of directors, for security reasons, adopted a policy that required that the chief executive officer complete all air travel, both business and personal, aboard our airplane. The purposes behind this policy were to promote the safety and security of our chief executive and his family and avoid the inefficiencies of commercial travel, thus allowing our chief executive to conduct business before, during and after flights and allow him to respond more quickly to business opportunities and urgent situations. The committee re-evaluated this policy during fiscal year 2012 and determined that, effective with our fiscal 2013 management transition, we no longer require our chief executive officer to use our airplane for any travel. In addition, under the committee’s direction, the company will limit personal use of the airplane going forward.

Other Perquisites.    For fiscal 2013, the other perquisites provided to our named executives consist primarily of club dues for one country club membership for each named executive, financial planning services, lunch club memberships, an annual executive company-paid physical, and a corporate apartment in Houston for our chief executive officer, who divides his time between our Houston and New Orleans offices. Mr. Taylor received the apartment benefit until his May 31, 2012 retirement and Mr. Platt received this benefit beginning June 1, 2012. We do not provide tax gross-ups on any perquisites.

Retirement and Non-Executive Chairman Agreement with Mr. Taylor

As mentioned previously, Mr. Taylor retired from the positions of President and Chief Executive Officer effective May 31, 2012 and entered into a Retirement and Non-Executive Chairman Agreement with the Company. Since June 1, 2012, Mr. Taylor has served as our board’s non-executive chairman and participates in the director compensation program as described in greater detail under “Director Compensation.” In addition, Mr. Taylor’s retirement agreement provides for the following:

Although not expressly provided in his agreement, the committee agreed to permit Mr. Taylor to use the corporate airplane for certain personal trips during fiscal 2013 that were already scheduled at the time he retired. However, as noted above under “Other Benefits—Use of Corporate Airplane,” the committee has determined that, going forward, personal use of the company airplane by any executive or director will be limited.

42

Table of Contents

Other Compensation and Equity Ownership Policies

Clawback Policy.    Under our Executive Compensation Recovery Policy, we may recover cash and equity incentive compensation awarded if the compensation was based on the achievement of financial results that were the subject of a subsequent restatement of our financial statements, if the executive officer engaged in intentional misconduct that caused the need for a restatement and the effect was to increase the amount of the incentive compensation.

Stock Ownership Guidelines.    Under our stock ownership guidelines, our officers are required to hold the following values in the form of company stock within five years of becoming an officer:

If an officer’s ownership guideline increases because of a change in title or if a new officer is added, a five-year period to achieve the incremental guideline begins in January following the year of the title change or addition as an officer. For our executives, the guidelines specify that time-based restricted stock and RSUs count as shares of company stock, but performance-based restricted stock and RSUs do not. As of the end of fiscal 2013, all executive officers were in compliance with the policy.

Prohibition on Hedging and Pledging Transactions.    Each of our named executives is subject to our Policy Statement on Insider Trading, an internal company policy adopted by our board. In January 2011, our board approved certain changes to this policy, including a blanket prohibition on engaging in certain forms of hedging or monetization transactions, such as prepaid variable forward contracts, equity swaps, collars, and exchange funds, with respect to our securities, regardless whether those securities were received as compensation. This prohibition applies to all company insiders (including our directors and our named executives) as well as all of our other employees. In addition, although the policy already prohibited holding company securities in margin accounts, we updated our policy in fiscal 2013 to include a blanket prohibition on insiders pledging company securities as collateral for a loan or any other purpose.

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.    Section 162(m) of the Code prohibits us from deducting more than $1 million in compensation paid to certain executive officers in a single year. An exception to the $1 million limit is provided for “performance-based compensation” that meets certain requirements, including approval by the company’s stockholders. The performance-based portion of our RSUs, which vest on the basis of performance and are issued under our stockholder-approved 2009 Stock Incentive Plan, are intended to qualify as “performance-based” and therefore be deductible under Section 162(m). In order that the company performance portion of our annual cash incentive awards may qualify as “performance-based” under Section 162(m) and be fully deductible, this portion of the fiscal 2013 annual incentive awards was paid to our named executives under the Tidewater Inc. Executive Officer Annual Incentive Plan (the “2008 Plan”) last approved by stockholders at our 2008 annual meeting. Under Section 162(m) rules, this plan must be approved by stockholders every five years; therefore, fiscal 2013 is the last year we could use the 2008 Plan for this purpose. Proposal 3 of this proxy statement seeks stockholder approval of a new Executive Officer Annual Incentive Plan that, if approved, will be used to make annual incentive awards in fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

While the compensation committee will seek to utilize deductible forms of compensation to the extent practicable, it believes it is important to preserve flexibility in administering compensation programs. Accordingly, the committee has not adopted a policy that all compensation must qualify as deductible under Section 162(m). The committee intends to monitor compensation levels and the deduction limitation.

43

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The compensation committee has reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis contained in this proxy statement. Based upon this review and discussion, the committee recommended to the board of directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement.

Compensation Committee:

Richard T. du Moulin, Chairman

Morris E. Foster

Joseph H. Netherland

Richard A. Pattarozzi

Nicholas J. Sutton

Jack E. Thompson

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION

The current members of our compensation committee are Messrs. du Moulin, Foster, Netherland, Pattarozzi, Sutton, and Thompson. None of the members of our compensation committee has been an officer or employee of our company or any of our subsidiaries. No executive officer of our company served in the last fiscal year as a director or member of the compensation committee of another entity one of whose executive officers served as a member of our board or on our compensation committee.

44

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The following table summarizes, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, the compensation paid to each of our named executives in all capacities in which they served.

FISCAL 2013 SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE