XML 83 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.1.9

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies |
(7) | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Vessel and Other Commitments The table below summarizes the company’s various vessel commitments to acquire and construct new vessels and ROVs, by vessel type, as of December 31, 2014:
(In thousands, except vessel count) |  | Number of Vessels/ROVs |  |  | Total Cost |  |  |  | Invested Through 12/31/14 |  |  |  | Remaining Balance 12/31/14 |
Vessels under construction: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Deepwater PSVs |  | 21 |  | $ | 713,903 |  |  |  | 258,460 |  |  |  | 455,443 |
Towing-supply vessels |  | 6 |  |  | 112,284 |  |  |  | 64,542 |  |  |  | 47,742 |
Other |  | 1 |  |  | 8,014 |  |  |  | 8,014 |  |  |  | — |
Total vessel commitments |  | 28 |  |  | 834,201 |  |  |  | 331,016 |  |  |  | 503,185 |
Total ROV commitments |  | 2 |  |  | 13,640 |  |  |  | 12,940 |  |  |  | 700 |
Total commitments |  | 30 |  | $ | 847,841 |  |  |  | 343,956 |  |  |  | 503,885 |
The total cost of the various vessel new-build commitments includes contract costs and other incidental costs. The company has vessels under construction at a number of different shipyards around the world. The deepwater PSVs under construction range between 3,000 and 6,360 deadweight tons (DWT) of cargo capacity while the towing-supply vessels under construction have 7,145 brake horsepower (BHP). The new-build vessels started delivering in January 2015, with delivery of the final new-build vessel expected in August 2016. The company also has new-build commitments for two ROVs at December 31, 2014 and expects the final assembly and outfitting of these ROVs to be completed within the quarter ending March 31, 2015. With its commitment to modernizing its fleet through its vessel construction and acquisition program over the past decade, the company has successfully replaced the vast majority of the older vessels in its fleet with fewer, larger and more efficient vessels that have a more extensive range of capabilities. These efforts are expected to continue through the delivery of the 28 vessels currently under construction, with the company anticipating that it will use some portion of its future operating cash flows and existing borrowing capacity as well as possible new borrowings or lease finance arrangements in order to fund current and future commitments in connection with the completion of the fleet renewal and modernization program. The company continues to evaluate its fleet renewal program, whether through new construction or acquisitions, relative to other investment opportunities and uses of cash, including the current share repurchase authorization, and in the context of current conditions in the credit and capital markets. The company has contracted with a Chinese shipyard for the construction and delivery of several shallow water towing-supply vessels. The shipyard is considerably behind schedule in the construction and delivery of the first two vessels. Progress payments made under the construction contracts are backed by refundment guarantees issued by Bank of China Ltd., Guangdong Branch, which amount to all but approximately $2.5 million of the carrying value of the accumulated costs through December 31, 2014. Several of the remaining vessels are also behind schedule. While the company believes that the shipyard continues to make progress with construction and the shipyard continues to communicate its intention to complete construction of the vessels, the company is evaluating its legal options under the relevant construction contracts. The company is continuing to experience substantial delay with one fast supply boat under construction in Brazil that was originally scheduled to be delivered in September 2009. On April 5, 2011, pursuant to the vessel construction contract, the company sent the subject shipyard a letter initiating arbitration in order to resolve disputes of such matters as the shipyard’s failure to achieve payment milestones, its failure to follow the construction schedule, and its failure to timely deliver the vessel. The company has suspended construction on the vessel and both parties continue to pursue that arbitration. The company has third party credit support in the form of insurance coverage for 90% of the progress payments made on this vessel, or all but approximately $2.4 million of the carrying value of the accumulated costs through December 31, 2014. The company had committed and invested $8.0 million as of December 31, 2014. In December 2013, the company took delivery of the second of two deepwater PSVs constructed in a U.S. shipyard. In connection with the delivery of those vessels, the company and the shipyard agreed to hold $11.7 million in escrow with a financial institution pending resolution of disputes over whether all or a portion of the escrowed funds were due to the shipyard as the shipyard has claimed. In October 2014, the parties resolved their pending disputes subject to a confidentiality provision and agreed on the split of the funds held in escrow. The amounts returned from the escrow to the company resulted in a reduction in the cost of the two acquired vessels, one of which was subsequently sold to an unaffiliated financial institution in connection with a sale/lease transaction that closed in the third quarter of fiscal 2014. The portion of the returned funds attributed to the vessel that was sold was recorded as a deferred gain that is being amortized over the 10-year lease term. 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. Merchant Navy Officers Pension Fund On July 15, 2013, a subsidiary of the company was placed into administration in the United Kingdom. Joint administrators were appointed to administer and distribute the subsidiary’s assets to the subsidiary’s creditors. The vessels owned by the subsidiary had become aged and were no longer economical to operate, which has caused the subsidiary’s main business to decline in recent years. Only one vessel generated revenue as of the date of the administration. As part of the administration, the company agreed to acquire seven vessels from the subsidiary (in exchange for cash) and to waive certain intercompany claims. The purchase price valuation for the vessels, all but one of which were stacked, was based on independent, third party appraisals of the vessels. The company previously reported that a subsidiary of the company is a participating employer in an industry-wide multi-employer retirement fund in the United Kingdom, known as the Merchant Navy Officers Pension Fund (MNOPF). The subsidiary that participates in the MNOPF is the entity that was placed into administration in the U.K. The MNOPF is that subsidiary’s largest creditor, and has claimed as an unsecured creditor in the administration. The Company believed that the administration was in the best interests of the subsidiary and its principal stakeholders, including the MNOPF. The MNOPF indicated that it did not object to the insolvency process and that, aside from asserting its claim in the subsidiary’s administration and based on the company’s representations of the financial status and other relevant aspects of the subsidiary, the MNOPF will not pursue the subsidiary in connection with any amounts due or which may become due to the fund. In December 2013, the administration was converted to a liquidation. That conversion allowed for an interim cash liquidation distribution to be made to the MNOPF. The conversion is not expected to have any impact on the company and the liquidation is expected to be completed in calendar 2015. The company believes that the liquidation will resolve the subsidiary’s participation in the MNOPF. The company also believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements. Sonatide Joint Venture As previously reported, in November 2013, a subsidiary of the company and its joint venture partner in Angola, Sonangol Holdings Lda. (“Sonangol”), executed a new joint venture agreement for their joint venture, Sonatide. The new joint venture agreement is currently effective and will expire, unless extended, two years after an Angolan entity, which is intended to be one of the Sonatide group of companies, has been incorporated. The Angolan entity is expected to be incorporated by mid- 2015 after certain Angolan regulatory approvals have been obtained. The challenges for the company to successfully operate in Angola remain significant. As the company has previously reported, on July 1, 2013, elements of new legislation (the “forex law”) became effective that generally require oil companies that engage in exploration and production activities offshore Angola through governmental concessions to pay for goods and services provided by foreign exchange residents in Angolan kwanzas that are initially deposited into an Angolan bank account. The forex law also imposes documentation and other requirements on service companies such as Sonatide in order to effect payments that are denominated in currencies other than Angolan kwanzas. The forex law has resulted in, and will likely continue to result in, substantial customer payments being made to Sonatide in Angolan kwanzas. This cumbersome payment process has imposed and could continue to impose a burden on Tidewater’s management of its cash and liquidity, because of the risks that the conversion of Angolan kwanzas into U.S. dollars and the subsequent expatriation of the funds could result in payment delays and currency devaluation prior to conversion of kwanzas to dollars, as well as burden the company with additional operating costs to convert kwanzas into dollars and potentially additional taxes. In response to the new forex law, Tidewater and Sonangol negotiated and signed an agreement that is set to expire in November 2015 (the “consortium agreement”) that is intended to allow the Sonatide joint venture to enter into contracts with customers that allocate billings for services provided by Sonatide between (i) billings for local services that are provided by a foreign exchange resident (that must be paid in kwanzas), and (ii) billings for services provided by offshore residents (that can be paid in dollars). Sonatide successfully converted select customer contracts to this split billing arrangement during the quarter ended December 31, 2014 and continues to discuss this type of billing arrangement with other customers. In November 2014, the National Bank of Angola issued new regulations controlling the sale of foreign currency. These regulations generally require oil companies to sell U.S. dollars to the National Bank of Angola to buy kwanzas that are required to be used to pay for goods and services provided by foreign exchange resident oilfield service companies, which, in turn, are required to then source dollars in order to pay for goods and services provided offshore. The regulations continue to permit tripartite agreements among oil companies, commercial banks and service companies that provide for the sale of U.S. dollars by an oil company to a commercial bank in exchange for kwanzas and the subsequent on-sale of those dollars by the commercial bank to the service company. The implementing regulations do, however, place constraints on those tripartite agreements that did not previously exist, and the period of time that the tripartite agreements will be allowed remains uncertain. If tripartite agreements or similar arrangements are not available to service companies in Angola that have a need for dollars, then such service companies will be required to source dollars exclusively through the National Bank of Angola. Sonatide has had limited success to date negotiating tripartite agreements with customers but continues its discussions with customers and commercial banks regarding these arrangements. For the nine months ended December 31, 2014, the company collected (primarily through Sonatide) approximately $271 million from Angolan customers, which approximately equals the revenue generated for the same period. Of the $271 million collected approximately $125 million represented U.S. dollars initially received by Sonatide on behalf of the company or dollars collected from other customers. The balance of $146 million collected resulted from Sonatide’s converting kwanza into dollars and subsequently expatriating the dollars to Tidewater. Additionally, the company received an approximate $10 million dividend payment from the Sonatide joint venture during the nine months ended December 31, 2014. Though Sonatide experienced a substantially reduced ability to convert kwanzas to dollars during parts of the quarter ended December 31, 2014 (possibly due to holiday season or the newly enhanced role of the National Bank of Angola in the conversion process), the company believes that the process for converting kwanzas has functioned reasonably well for much of calendar 2014, particularly given that the conversion process was still developing. Sonatide continues to press its commercial bank relationships to increase the amount of dollars available to Sonatide. As of December 31, 2014, the company had approximately $422 million in amounts due from Sonatide, largely reflecting unpaid vessel revenue related to services performed by the company through the Sonatide joint venture. These amounts began to accumulate in late calendar 2012, when the initial provisions of the forex law relating to payments for goods and services provided by foreign exchange residents took effect (and payments were required to be paid into local bank accounts). Beginning in July 2013, when the second provision of the forex law took effect (and the local payments had to be made in kwanza), Sonatide generally accrued for but did not deliver invoices to customers for vessel revenue related to Sonatide and the company’s collective Angolan operations in order to minimize the exposure that Sonatide would be paid for a substantial amount of charter hire in kwanzas and into an Angolan bank. In the interim, the company has been using its credit facility and other arrangements to fund the substantial working capital requirements related to its Angola operations. Beginning in the first quarter of fiscal 2015, Sonatide began sending invoices to those customers who have insisted on paying U.S. dollar denominated invoices in kwanza. As invoices are paid in kwanza, Sonatide is seeking to convert those kwanzas into U.S. dollars and subsequently utilize those U.S. dollars to pay the amounts that Sonatide owes the company. This conversion and expatriation process is subject to those risks and considerations set forth above. In addition, since February 2014, Sonatide has been entering into customer agreements that contain split dollar/kwanza payments (typically 70% dollars and 30% kwanzas). While the company is confident, that these split payment contracts comply with current Angolan law, it is not clear if this type of contracting will be available to Sonatide over the longer term. To the extent the National Bank of Angola issues further clarifying interpretations of the forex law or standard market practices develop in Angola in regards to split payment contracts without objection by the National Bank of Angola, the company expects that Sonatide will more broadly utilize split payment contracts. For the nine months ended December 31, 2014, Tidewater’s Angolan operations generated vessel revenues of approximately $271 million, or 23%, of its consolidated vessel revenue, from an average of approximately 83 Tidewater-owned vessels that are marketed through the Sonatide joint venture (four of which were stacked on average during the nine months ended December 31, 2014), and, for the nine months ended December 31, 2013, generated vessel revenues of approximately $261 million, or 25%, of consolidated vessel revenue, from an average of approximately 90 Tidewater-owned vessels (five of which were stacked on average during the nine months ended December 31, 2013). The Sonatide joint venture owns nine vessels (three of which are currently stacked) and certain other assets, in addition to earning commission income from Tidewater-owned vessels marketed through the Sonatide joint venture (owned 49% by Tidewater). In addition, as of December 31, 2014, Sonatide maintained the equivalent of approximately $95 million of Kwanza-denominated deposits in Angolan banks, largely related to customer receipts that had not yet been converted to U.S. dollars, expatriated and then remitted to the company. As of December 31, 2014 and March 31, 2014, the carrying value of Tidewater’s investment in the Sonatide joint venture, which is included in “Investments in, at equity, and advances to unconsolidated companies,” is approximately $64 million and $62 million, respectively. Due from affiliate at December 31, 2014 and March 31, 2014 of approximately $422 million and $430 million, respectively, represents cash received by Sonatide from customers and due to the company, amounts due from customers that are expected to be remitted to the company through Sonatide and, finally, reimbursable costs paid by Tidewater on behalf of Sonatide. Due to affiliate at December 31, 2014 and March 31, 2014 of approximately $158 million and $86 million, respectively, represents amounts due to Sonatide for commissions payable (approximately $58 million and $43 million, respectively) and other costs paid by Sonatide on behalf of the company. A new presidential decree regulating maritime transportation activities was enacted in Angola earlier this year. Following recent discussions with port state authorities and local counsel, the company is uncertain whether the authorities will interpret the decree to require one hundred percent Angolan ownership of local vessel operators such as Sonatide. This interpretation may result in the need to work with Sonangol to further restructure our Sonatide joint venture and our operations in Angola. The company has been informed by the authorities that the deadline for foreign vessel operators to comply with any rules implementing the decree has been set for June 2015. The company is seeking further clarification of the new decree and is exploring potential alternative structures in order to comply. Management continues to explore ways to profitably participate in the Angolan market while looking for opportunities to reduce the overall level of exposure to the increased risks that the company believes currently characterize the Angolan market. Included among mitigating measures taken by the company to address these risks is the redeployment of vessels from time to time to other markets where there is adequate demand for the company’s vessels. During the year ended March 31, 2014, the company redeployed vessels from its Angolan operations to other markets and also transferred vessels into its Angolan operations from other markets resulting in a net increase of one vessel operating in Angola. Redeployment of vessels to other markets in the period beginning April 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 has been more pronounced (net 10 vessels transferred out of Angola, including four smaller crewboats that were stacked outside of Angola) than in prior periods. Although our customers’ near term offshore spending plans and the level of newbuild vessel activity both remain in flux, we continue to believe that the global market for offshore support vessels is reasonably well balanced, with offshore vessel supply approximately equal to offshore vessel demand. If the company were to consider redeployment of a substantial number of vessels from Angola to other markets, however, there would likely be temporary negative financial effects associated with such redeployment, including mobilization costs and costs to redeploy Tidewater shore-based employees to other areas, in addition to lost revenues associated with potential downtime between vessel contracts. These financial impacts could, individually or in the aggregate, be material to our results of operations and cash flows for the periods when such costs would be incurred. If there is a need to redeploy vessels which are currently deployed in Angola to other international markets, Tidewater believes that there is sufficient demand for a majority of these vessels (particularly the larger and more sophisticated vessels) at prevailing market day rates. 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 155.0 million Brazilian reais (approximately $58.3 million as of December 31, 2014). The assessment of these fines is for the alleged failure of these subsidiaries to obtain import licenses with respect to 17 Tidewater vessels that provided Brazilian offshore vessel services to Petrobras, the Brazilian national oil company, over a three-year period ending December 2009. After consultation with its Brazilian tax advisors, Tidewater and its Brazilian subsidiaries believe that vessels that provide services under contract to the Brazilian offshore oil and gas industry are deemed, under applicable law and regulations, to be temporarily imported into Brazil, and thus exempt from the import license requirement. The Macae Customs Office has, without a change in the underlying applicable law or regulations, taken the position that the temporary importation exemption is only available to new, and not used, goods imported into Brazil and therefore it was improper for the company to deem its vessels as being temporarily imported. The fines have been assessed based on this new interpretation of Brazilian customs law taken by the Macae Customs Office. After consultation with its Brazilian tax advisors, the company believes that the assessment is without legal justification and that the Macae Customs Office has misinterpreted applicable Brazilian law on duties and customs. The company is vigorously contesting these fines (which it has neither paid nor accrued) and, based on the advice of its Brazilian counsel, believes that it has a high probability of success with respect to the overturn of the entire amount of the fines, either at the administrative appeal level or, if necessary, in Brazilian courts. In December 2011, an administrative board issued a decision that disallowed 149.0 million Brazilian reais (approximately $56.1 million as of December 31, 2014) of the total fines sought by the Macae Customs Office. In two separate proceedings in 2013, a secondary administrative appeals board considered fines totaling 127.0 million Brazilian reais (approximately $47.8 million as of December 31, 2014) and rendered decisions that disallowed all of those fines. The remaining fines totaling 28.0 million Brazilian reais (approximately $10.5 million as of December 31, 2014) are still subject to a secondary administrative appeals board hearing, but the company believes that both decisions will be helpful in that upcoming hearing. The secondary board decisions disallowing the fines totaling 127.0 million Brazilian reais are, however, still subject to the possibility of further administrative appeal by the authorities that imposed the initial fines. The company believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements. Nigeria Marketing Agent Litigation On March 1, 2013, Tidewater filed suit in the London Commercial Court against Tidewater’s Nigerian marketing agent for breach of the agent’s obligations under contractual agreements between the parties. The alleged breach involves actions of the Nigerian marketing agent to discourage various affiliates of TOTAL S.A. from paying approximately $19 million (including Naira and U.S. dollar denominated invoices) due to the company for vessel services performed in Nigeria. Shortly after the London Commercial Court filing, TOTAL commenced interpleader proceedings in Nigeria naming the Nigerian agent and the company as respondents and seeking an order which would allow TOTAL to deposit those monies with a Nigerian court for the respondents to resolve. On April 25, 2013, Tidewater filed motions in the Nigerian Federal High Court to stop the interpleader proceedings in Nigeria or alternatively stay them until the resolution of the suit filed in London. The company will continue to actively pursue the collection of those monies. On April 30, 2013, the Nigerian marketing agent filed a separate suit in the Nigerian Federal High Court naming Tidewater and certain TOTAL affiliates as defendants. The suit seeks various declarations and orders, including a claim for the monies that are subject to the above interpleader proceedings, and other relief. The company is seeking dismissal of this suit and otherwise intends to vigorously defend against the claims made. The company has not reserved for this receivable and believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements. On or about December 30, 2014, the company received notice that the Nigerian marketing agent had filed an action in the Nigerian Federal High court seeking to prevent the continuation of the proceedings initiated by Tidewater in the London Commercial Court. The company intends to vigorously defend that action. In October, 2012, Tidewater had notified the Nigerian marketing agent that it was discontinuing its relationship with the Nigerian marketing agent. The company has entered into a new strategic relationship with a different Nigerian counterparty that it believes will better serve the company’s long term interests in Nigeria. This new strategic relationship is currently functioning as the company intended. Venezuelan Operations On February 16, 2010, Tidewater and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Claimants”) filed with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) a Request for Arbitration against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. As previously reported by Tidewater, in May 2009 Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”), the national oil company of Venezuela, took possession and control of (a) eleven of the Claimants’ vessels that were then supporting PDVSA operations in Lake Maracaibo, (b) the Claimants’ shore-based headquarters adjacent to Lake Maracaibo, (c) the Claimants’ operations in Lake Maracaibo, and (d) certain other related assets. The company also previously reported that in July 2009 Petrosucre, S.A., a subsidiary of PDVSA, took possession and control of the Claimants’ four vessels, operations, and related assets in the Gulf of Paria. It is Tidewater’s position that, through those measures, the Republic of Venezuela directly or indirectly expropriated the Claimants’ investments, including the capital stock of the Claimants’ principal operating subsidiary in Venezuela. The Claimants alleged in the Request for Arbitration that each of the measures taken by the Republic of Venezuela against the Claimants violates the Republic of Venezuela’s obligations under the bilateral investment treaty with Barbados and rules and principles of Venezuelan law and international law. An arbitral tribunal was constituted under the ICSID Convention to resolve the dispute. The tribunal first addressed the Republic of Venezuela’s objections to the tribunal’s jurisdiction over the dispute. A hearing on jurisdiction was held in Washington, D.C. on February 29 and March 1, 2012. On February 8, 2013, the tribunal issued its decision on jurisdiction. The tribunal found that it has jurisdiction over the claims under the Venezuela-Barbados bilateral investment treaty, including the claim for compensation for the expropriation of Tidewater’s principal operating subsidiary, but that it does not have jurisdiction based on Venezuela’s investment law. The practical effect of the tribunal’s decision is to exclude from the case the claims for expropriation of the fifteen vessels described above. While the tribunal determined that it does not have jurisdiction over the claim for the seizure of the fifteen vessels, Tidewater received during fiscal 2011 insurance proceeds for the insured value of those vessels (less an additional premium payment triggered by those proceeds). Tidewater believes that the claims remaining in the case, over which the tribunal upheld jurisdiction, represent the most substantial portion of the overall value lost as a result of the measures taken by the Republic of Venezuela. Tidewater has discussed the nature of the insurance proceeds received for the fifteen vessels in previous quarterly and annual filings. The tribunal has concluded the briefing and hearings to determine the merits of the claims over which the tribunal has jurisdiction. The final hearings on the merits were held in Washington, D.C. on June 9 - 12, 2014. The merits phase will determine whether the Republic of Venezuela violated the Venezuela-Barbados bilateral investment treaty and will value the property expropriated by Venezuela. At the time of the expropriation, the principal operating subsidiary had sizeable accounts receivable from PDVSA and Petrosucre, denominated in both U.S. Dollars and Venezuelan Bolivars. The next step is for the tribunal to issue its written determination on the merits. The time frame for issuance of that written determination by the tribunal is uncertain. Legal Proceedings 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. For additional information on certain of our ongoing legal proceedings, see Part II, Item 1: Legal Proceedings.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration